'Always online' will affect you whether or not you have a good connection.

[HalfTangible]

I have a great internet connection. I have an upper-middle class family that lives comfortably in a suburb. My internet goes down every once in a while, but while it runs, it's truly amazing. Having an always-on connection wouldn't change my gaming experience (at least until the servers are shut down) on my end, and heck, if it really bothered me I could probably look up a way to hack and then play the XBone offline.

But I refuse to buy an always-on console on sheer PRINCIPLE. It's such a stupid move by the manufacturer of such a console and such a total INSULT to their customers (say what you like about Adam Orth's tweet and his intelligence, at least he was being HONEST with us.) that buying such a thing would make me sick to my stomach just thinking about the fact it exists. A company taking customers for granted like this is more than a little scary.

Good-bye, Microsoft. I still have your PC, but I doubt I'll play games on anything else of yours from now on -_- even if this thing can't play Bioshock infinite and barely runs Dota 2.

 

[Zeh Don]

Are some people really willing to give up their rights for a chance to play Halo 5? C'mon guys...

 

[wulfy42]

Actually I prefer online storage (like steam) to hard format disks at this point. Yes, I have a strong connection that is always online now (been down maybe 4 hours all together in the last 6 months..and since we have our phones etc using it...we KNOW when it's down).

I believe Xbone is going to require you to only log in once a day, for a quick verification....which in theory can be done even with dial up if need be. Add in the ability to get reliable (from all accounts, I don't have it) satellite wireless internet for as little as $50 (from dish network for one), and anyone can have internet service if they want at this point.

As far as rights are concerned, yes I am willing to give up some of those rights, to prevent piracy, ensure the actual game creators are getting the profit (reduce resales somewhat and increase the % of money going to developers and creators instead of retailers). Digital only games, at least I hope, are the future, but it may be a bumpy ride getting there.

An online connection shouldn't be required for the next gen of systems, but it's the last generation of systems where it shouldn't be, and to help with that, it should be geared towards being convenient for people with an internet connection (allowing digital downloads, cloud storage etc) and not the other way around. If you don't have a reliable internet connection at this point, most of the time that is your fault/decision (with some exceptions of course). Physical copies of games should be available but at a higher base price (due to having to create and distribute them). Digital copies should be sold at a reduced price then current games (base $50 price instead of $60 for most). Deal with the always online problem by allowing physical copies of games to avoid that issue, needing only to have an online connection initially when you play the game for each disc (only needing to re-initialize it to play on another system).

Easy solution, prevents piracy, enables people to play games with the bare minimum connections (you could literally use wifi from tons of places to get the connection you need).

Meanwhile for the large percentage that do have decent internet, cloud storage of saves, storage of game libraries (allowing you to download them at will once you purchase them), digital purchases including demos (so you can try the game and if you like it just unlock the rest of the game with your current saved data transfered), instant DLC etc etc.

It's getting to the point where you will miss out on so many options on a new gaming console system anyway if you don't have internet access that I bet 99% of the people who shell out the cash for a ps4 or xbone...will have some form of internet access, or get it soon afterwards.

 

[Tarcolt]

I have a great internet connection. I have an upper-middle class family that lives comfortably in a suburb. My internet goes down every once in a while, but while it runs, it's truly amazing. Having an always-on connection wouldn't change my gaming experience (at least until the servers are shut down) on my end, and heck, if it really bothered me I could probably look up a way to hack and then play the XBone offline.

But I refuse to buy an always-on console on sheer PRINCIPLE. It's such a stupid move by the manufacturer of such a console and such a total INSULT to their customers (say what you like about Adam Orth's tweet and his intelligence, at least he was being HONEST with us.) that buying such a thing would make me sick to my stomach just thinking about the fact it exists. A company taking customers for granted like this is more than a little scary.

Good-bye, Microsoft. I still have your PC, but I doubt I'll play games on anything else of yours from now on -_- even if this thing can't play Bioshock infinite and barely runs Dota 2.

This Guy gets it. I personally have a rubbish internet connection, always online means unplayable for me, even an online log-in like steam (which it sounds like the Xbone is doing) takes forever and doesn't always behave itself. Its good to see other people in different circumstances with the same cause

As far as all this first world problem stuff is concerned, Guys your on a gaming site what did you expect, we take this seriously, we don't want our pastime wasted by poor choices in "service" design. It would be really nice if I could play my single player games as such, other people ruin my games.

And Blizzard isn't all good, I'm still waiting for starcraft 2 LAN support.

 

[Something Amyss]

At least that's what I think sane people would do, and Microsoft are...erm, sane enough (or "not as insane" to a sufficient degree?) to realise and implement it.

This is the same Microsoft, of course, that couldn't handle the load of providing XBox Live service for the first 3-ish years of the 360's existence because they couldn't figure out that peak sales times would equal more concurrent users.

Now, that might be better with cloud technology, but I wouldn't count on Microsoft being bright enough to use it that way.

 

[likalaruku]

Yeah, it's the fact that I won't be able to play them 10 years latter that eats me. I've lost a few MMORPGs I'll never be able to play again ever.

I'm thinking that single player ROM hacks of online-only games might become a thing in the future, unless companies are polite enough to make games offline compatible after shutting down the servers forever.

2013....The Ouya, the X-bone, the WiiU, & the PS4....It seems to be all about who's console is going to suck the most in it's first year.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

It brings up a good point that when the new console comes out, Xbox One servers will be shut down. Once that happens, you can NEVER play that console ever again.

Imagine never being able to play your 360 ever again, or much older consoles like the N64.

 

[DoPo]

At least that's what I think sane people would do, and Microsoft are...erm, sane enough (or "not as insane" to a sufficient degree?) to realise and implement it.

This is the same Microsoft, of course, that couldn't handle the load of providing XBox Live service for the first 3-ish years of the 360's existence because they couldn't figure out that peak sales times would equal more concurrent users.

Now, that might be better with cloud technology, but I wouldn't count on Microsoft being bright enough to use it that way.

I should mention that it's the same Microsoft that can botch anything regardless of importance or simplicity - they sort of (very sort of) DDoSed the Internet by mistake. And at other point in time just sort of started breaking networking in general. Also the same who made, like, a bajillion wrong decisions and idiocies with the original Xbox security [http://events.ccc.de/congress/2005/fahrplan/attachments/591-paper_xbox.pdf] (you can skip the technical parts, if you wish, and it's an entertaining read). Also the same Microsoft that brought us Clippy. I mean, I don't have high hopes of them to begin with. May be a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I believe at least they can learn from past mistakes.

But I'm open to the possibility they can screw up in all new and even more spectacular ways.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

With all things, there needs to be a balance.

for a long time, there was a good balance. I pay, I get. I don't see it being any more simpler, any more fair. You marketed a good. A good that I found to be worth my money to own. I give you the money. You see it's legal tender. We smile at each other, because we both got something that we wanted. You wanted my tender, I wanted your product to own. Literally win-win.

I believe in giving up of myself when there are people in need. A homeless man can have a dollar that I could have used. A friend can get a ride to the airport even if I have no sleep. People need things and it might require me giving up something. There is no need here by the Publishers. The same Publishers who sell millions of copies, but it didn't live up to their lofty goals so everything betrayed them. There is no need to actually control my ability to use a product I pay for. A lot of people don't like the car analogy, but I'll use it another way.

If I lease a car, yes, it's technically not mine. I have to make payments on it, and as long as I do I get to keep it. One of the benefits of leasing is that I can get a new one if I want, and the updates and fixing is free. But where this diverges from the gaming industry is now this:

If I wanted to own a car, I could buy it and it's all mine. It's a special small niche group of indie games and developers like CDProjekt that can say they do that now. We're being charged the full buying price (now known as the "take it off the lot forever" price) for leasing. We don't have to continue paying like car owners, but we never get to say it's truly mine.

I mean honestly, why stop here? Why isn't Amazon or Craigslist brought before a national committee and cited for taking sales away from Ikea, Kenmore, Samsung, and Sleepy's? It almost assuredly happens literally every second that something that was once bought by one person is sold to another person by that first one. No one seems to be as butthurt as game developers. No industry has got together and plotted so fiendishly as Game Designers and said "we've been slighted by a small margin of our consumers... how can we make them all pay and get more power for ourselves?".

You know what? I'd even be fine if the Xbone sent one signal that says "yes, it's a legal copy and he bought it. Yay for him". But why in Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Holy Name do you need to check it every. damn. day? Do you think that I'll pull a fast one on you and switch out a used copy? How could I? You copy the game to the Xbone. Why would I? For you to actually be able to read and write the game to the system, it has to be a legal copy. What purpose would I have done this? And seriously... even if I did... what's the problem anyway? You already have my money. It would be a fool's errand to get an illegal copy, but it's still a meaningless copy on top of one I already bought? 'So the Fuck What' comes screaming through my brain.

Just like video games are not a need, the frantic rescinding of rights from the Publishers and Developers to address something I'm not even apart of is not a need I have to stand for.

 

[Something Amyss]

But I'm open to the possibility they can screw up in all new and even more spectacular ways.

XD

This is why I'm worried about any console that relies heavily on the servers (from Microsoft especially). Like, they don't need to be "always online" consoles or anything for this to go reeeeeeally bad. I couldn't access a lot of my games over the holidays back when they had the online issues because they didn't have license transfer back then and I'd returned my RRODed console to them and got a new (obviously refurbed) one back. So their DRM + major downtime...Yeah, I couldn't access most of my products.

Now you consider the fact that they're talking about power increase through the cloud and server-side operations, and it wouldn't take much to make the One a really expensive cable-box add-on. That worries me, less because of what they haven't said yet and more because of what they've done in the past.

 

[bug_of_war]

There really is a very simple solution to the problem of, "In x years my Xbox One will be 100% useless" it's not buying the Xbox One. Yeah, that's right, to save all that hassle of dreading the eventual loss of a consoles use just don't buy it. When you have the PS4 and Wii U both doing the exact opposite, and you're not into going through the process of learning how to maintain a PC (like me) then just buy the PS4 or Wii U. As for the always online DRM, if you don't like it, don't buy a game with it, or accept that the product you are purchasing has those features. Yes, you're paying money for a product and should be able to use it, but you should know what you're buying and the risks that come with it. If I buy a car that is a manual, but am poor at driving a manual, then it's my fault for buying that product. You can be annoyed, but be smart with your money, don't drop it on things that have the potential to screw up if you're not prepared for that screw up to happen.

In short, you have the right to be annoyed, but don't say, "THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN! I PAID MONEY FOR THIS" when in reality you should know that when paying for a product that is always online it has the potential to have it's servers go down.

 

[HalfTangible]

Actually I prefer online storage (like steam) to hard format disks at this point. Yes, I have a strong connection that is always online now (been down maybe 4 hours all together in the last 6 months..and since we have our phones etc using it...we KNOW when it's down).

I believe Xbone is going to require you to only log in once a day, for a quick verification....which in theory can be done even with dial up if need be. Add in the ability to get reliable (from all accounts, I don't have it) satellite wireless internet for as little as $50 (from dish network for one), and anyone can have internet service if they want at this point.

As far as rights are concerned, yes I am willing to give up some of those rights, to prevent piracy, ensure the actual game creators are getting the profit (reduce resales somewhat and increase the % of money going to developers and creators instead of retailers). Digital only games, at least I hope, are the future, but it may be a bumpy ride getting there.

An online connection shouldn't be required for the next gen of systems, but it's the last generation of systems where it shouldn't be, and to help with that, it should be geared towards being convenient for people with an internet connection (allowing digital downloads, cloud storage etc) and not the other way around. If you don't have a reliable internet connection at this point, most of the time that is your fault/decision (with some exceptions of course). Physical copies of games should be available but at a higher base price (due to having to create and distribute them). Digital copies should be sold at a reduced price then current games (base $50 price instead of $60 for most). Deal with the always online problem by allowing physical copies of games to avoid that issue, needing only to have an online connection initially when you play the game for each disc (only needing to re-initialize it to play on another system).

Easy solution, prevents piracy, enables people to play games with the bare minimum connections (you could literally use wifi from tons of places to get the connection you need).

Meanwhile for the large percentage that do have decent internet, cloud storage of saves, storage of game libraries (allowing you to download them at will once you purchase them), digital purchases including demos (so you can try the game and if you like it just unlock the rest of the game with your current saved data transfered), instant DLC etc etc.

It's getting to the point where you will miss out on so many options on a new gaming console system anyway if you don't have internet access that I bet 99% of the people who shell out the cash for a ps4 or xbone...will have some form of internet access, or get it soon afterwards.

What I love most about this response is that you're defending the Xbone but still call it the xbone =3 seriously, thank you

 

[RicoADF]

For what it's worth, I doubt the new Xbox servers would go down due to load. Since they are going to be using cloud technology, my guess would be that they'll virtualise the servers too which in turn means that it's incredibly easy to scale them up and down depending on load - if an extra 10k people join that you can't handle, spin up several machines and you're down;traffic goes back to normal, spin them down. Done. This is not what SimCity or Diablo 3 did, as they just couldn't overprovide for peak loads as easily.

At least that's what I think sane people would do, and Microsoft are...erm, sane enough (or "not as insane" to a sufficient degree?) to realise and implement it.

Not that it makes the online requirement any better in general, though. I still don't think it's necessary or even desirable for single player games. Brings in too much complexity and potential faults, even assuming your internet connection is OK (which...is not an assumption that can be made for everybody ever). Moreover, it's extra cost on the developer/publisher/whoever is in charge of it. Quite an extra cost. They could just be getting more profit by not doing that and using the extra proffit and workforce (those severs ain't gonna maintain themselves) for other stuff like...making other games. Or whatever.

You don't know how the cloud works do you? Simcity was done via the cloud and look where that ended up. Fact is that it all has to be done on a physical server (no matter how many times you split it virtually) and those servers are often over taxed, with lines that cant support the demand. No amount of virtualisation will fix it, and the corporations wont spend the money because they want to make a profit, tough luck if the customer suffers. If anything I suspect the XBone will be the biggest fail because of it's always online IF it has a demand, which going by what people have been saying on forums etc and their stock market response may not be that high of a demand, in which case they may be ok.

 

[wulfy42]

Actually I prefer online storage (like steam) to hard format disks at this point. Yes, I have a strong connection that is always online now (been down maybe 4 hours all together in the last 6 months..and since we have our phones etc using it...we KNOW when it's down).

I believe Xbone is going to require you to only log in once a day, for a quick verification....which in theory can be done even with dial up if need be. Add in the ability to get reliable (from all accounts, I don't have it) satellite wireless internet for as little as $50 (from dish network for one), and anyone can have internet service if they want at this point.

As far as rights are concerned, yes I am willing to give up some of those rights, to prevent piracy, ensure the actual game creators are getting the profit (reduce resales somewhat and increase the % of money going to developers and creators instead of retailers). Digital only games, at least I hope, are the future, but it may be a bumpy ride getting there.

An online connection shouldn't be required for the next gen of systems, but it's the last generation of systems where it shouldn't be, and to help with that, it should be geared towards being convenient for people with an internet connection (allowing digital downloads, cloud storage etc) and not the other way around. If you don't have a reliable internet connection at this point, most of the time that is your fault/decision (with some exceptions of course). Physical copies of games should be available but at a higher base price (due to having to create and distribute them). Digital copies should be sold at a reduced price then current games (base $50 price instead of $60 for most). Deal with the always online problem by allowing physical copies of games to avoid that issue, needing only to have an online connection initially when you play the game for each disc (only needing to re-initialize it to play on another system).

Easy solution, prevents piracy, enables people to play games with the bare minimum connections (you could literally use wifi from tons of places to get the connection you need).

Meanwhile for the large percentage that do have decent internet, cloud storage of saves, storage of game libraries (allowing you to download them at will once you purchase them), digital purchases including demos (so you can try the game and if you like it just unlock the rest of the game with your current saved data transfered), instant DLC etc etc.

It's getting to the point where you will miss out on so many options on a new gaming console system anyway if you don't have internet access that I bet 99% of the people who shell out the cash for a ps4 or xbone...will have some form of internet access, or get it soon afterwards.

What I love most about this response is that you're defending the Xbone but still call it the xbone =3 seriously, thank you

Lol Well, I have no intention at all of getting the "Xbone", I only don't regret buying the xbox360 because of Too human. I'm not an FPS fan, and every other game I wanted to play was available on PS3 as well (the reverse isn't true). I am a supporter of moving forward and having digital copies be the new norm though, so in this case I guess I am supporting the Xbone (or at least the online concept part of it).

I have been dissapointed twice by the Xbox, with the original...and not learning from that, the xbox360. The original at least had the champions of Norrath games (believe that was Xbox only), and Fable etc. The 360 had um fable 3 (I barely played it without getting bored) and um...too human for me. Nothing else that I even remember. I wish I could get my $60 back for fable 3 (actually it was a gift now that I think about it...from my wife....so no big loss).

I'm hoping the Ps4 moves forward towards digital copies more then the ps3 already has. PSN already has a similar setup to steam (you can download games you own as many times as you want etc), so really all they need to do is allow all games to be purchased that way, and reduce the price for digital copies, and I'll be happy.

I have lived through the entire history of gaming, all the way back to the first systems and games, and I am lazy now. I like the new methods of just having your games available digitally at will. I have way to many physical copies of games, and I don't need anymore. I look forward to a future where you don't even need your own digital copies anymore and internet connections are fast enough that you can play games completely on other peoples servers, allowing you to seamlessly play them from one system to another, including portable systems etc. I don't think that future is that far away either.

 

[Trueflame]

My god. Why is the only response supporters of always online DRM have is to talk about how it's just a game, and it's not the end of the world if it doesn't work for a little while, and so forth? Do they not realize how ridiculously dumb such an argument is? Of course it's just a game! And a television screen is just a bunch of pixels, and what I'm typing are just a bunch of letters representing meaningless phonetic sounds like so much braying of sheep, and we're all traveling through a cold and unforgiving universe, possibly with no meaning to life, so what point or purpose is there to anything? So should we just curl up and die, or commit suicide on the spot because of it? Hell no!

Of course it's a video game, of course I don't *need* to play it, of course I can spend my time doing other things, of course it's not a matter of life and death and often not even a matter of importance. Yes it's a "first-world problem." But it is a problem. If I spend my money on something, I want to have whatever it is that I bought, I want to be able to use it, control it, sell it, trade it, break it, store it, or anything else I so desire. Because I bought it and paid for it, that is the very basis of any system of private property. If I have something and it breaks, I can try to have it fixed, that is my decision. If something that is supposed to be my property can be arbitrarily taken from me, can be disrupted, can be deleted, can be in any way altered or affected, then it isn't really mine. Then I don't own a video game, I only have a lease on a video game. And that's totally fine, there is a market for such things. But if that's the case, then it should be called that, and it should be very clear that any game with always-online DRM is not a game that you can ever own, and you're only spending your money for something that will disappear in some amount of time, whether it be in a year, or ten years, or fifty years. And yes, of course everything eventually disappears. Computers fall apart, cars break, clothes tear, and so forth. But all of those things are dependent on factors I control, like how well I take care of my property, how I maintain it, and so forth. Nothing I can do can change when servers come on or off, when they break, and when they are shut down. And that's a critical difference.

 

[Grivahri]

As much as I hate the always online crap I doubt that the microsoft servers will fail, they have like 300 000 servers only for xbox one

 

[irishda]

If you have legs, you dont "need" a car either just like you dont "need" fruit or a tshirt either because this is the first world and we probably have something else to eat/wear. Whether we "need" it is irrelevant to the argument. We bought it and therefore the company selling it have no more right to prevent us using it than they have preventing us from using a tshirt or a car we bought - regardless of their excuses. If there is a health hazard then that is something completely different, but preventing customers from using the product they paid for because you feel like you dont make quite enough money from what is already in your game is not a valid reason.

There are degrees of inconvenience that are attached with not having certain modern products, based around the practicality of different products. There are a myriad number of entertainment products (or even methods of entertainment without products), but there are few personal transportation modes that can travel vast distances quickly at the driver's convenience and leisure. This is not, therefore, even a case we should bother being upset about.

If you personally play diablo 3 or not is also irrelevant because it is a matter of a company selling a product which clearly doesnt work for many people. That you personally did not have problems with it, does not mean that others did not and that it is therefore a reasonable business practice. The problems were there in Sim City 5 and in Diablo 3 and they will be in any forthcoming product requiring online DRM because regardless of how perfect your personal ISP is, the publishers ISP will never be - and even if they were, there will always be peak periods which overwhelm the servers which in turn force you to not be able to use the product you paid for.

An analogy could be that the bicycle you wanted to use to drive a trip with your friends suddenly didnt work because the producers of the bike decided to make some ajustments to it which you didnt even want in the first place. Sure you dont NEED to take a trip with your friends but since this is your bike and your spare time, what right does the people who made your bike have to prevent you from using it? As you said, you dont NEED the bike because you dont NEED to take a trip with your mates, but Im betting you´d be pretty angry about it

You're closer, but again, the video game is also a bit more technologically advanced than a bicycle. There are different expectations attached to all sorts of things in life, which doesn't mean one translates to the other. If I buy food, it is reasonable that I expect the food to not be spoiled. If I buy a T-Shirt, it is unreasonable for me to become angry if it doesn't fit, as there are dressing rooms in pretty much every store and the store has the reasonable expectation that I am responsible for ensuring I select the right size for myself. If I buy a car, it is not unreasonable for me to expect it to be functional, but it is unreasonable for me to assume that the vehicle should never break down ever.

When I buy a game, it is not unreasonable that I receive a product I can use. However, if I am warned about certain risks involved with my purchase (such as when you're warned of the risks right before sky diving), then it is unreasonable for me to become upset when these risks occur, as I was forewarned.

 

[Snotnarok]

Whenever I take my car in for a service/registration/repairs its quite literally not available due to maintenance, whenever I put my t-shirt in the wash its not available for a while... should I go raging to the car manufacturer or the clothes shop that "OMG I can't use the car/tshirt 24/7/365 so it's a terrible product"? At least when hackers take down the servers we get them back eventually... that's not really the case when your car gets stolen and taken for a joy ride.

Are you seriously comparing repairing your car and washing your clothes with publisher-imposed DRM which has no place being there in the first place and its ONLY reason to exist is to control you and the usage scenario e.g. take away rights from you, among them:
- being able to play at all times
- being able to play how you want
- being able to play after they drop support
- being able to resell
- being able to lend/rent
- being able to datamine you and possibly deliver better targeted Ads
etc.

That's why I don't understand why people keep justifying it, because all it is, is a method of controlling the customer base on what they do.

Even if they were to remove all this DRM I wouldn't trust them with a console again, since they considered doing it in the first place. I own a 360, it's my most used console, but Xbox One is not going to be owned by me, not ever.

It's not only that but when publishers are giving pirates the benefits unintentionally or not (intentionally) it's really irratting since the paying customer is the one giving them money and the pirate's only cost is having to wait a week or so for the stupid DRM to be cracked.
Edit: I mean I know this is said often but when people defend this sorta thing you bring this up they always say "that's not something to be accounted for" and why not? Piracy is clearly not one of the priorities, the priorities are
1- Monitoring what/when/how/how fast people play the game with what specs/platform
2- Advertizing, what applies to said person
3- Restricting the person while knowing what form of DLCs they will buy based on data farmed from person(s)

 

[Aeshi]

MMOs have avoided this issue by being LABELED as MMOs when they make sense to be.

And just about every always-on game (MMO or not) is "labelled" as requiring a constant internet connection in it's Minimum Requirements. Companies are hardly to blame for the fact that most people today are apparently either illiterate or stupid.

 

[Snotnarok]

There shouldn't even be an argument against always on DRM but for some reason people are fighting against the customers rights.
Yes companies have a right to protect their products, however when the people stealing said product are getting the better deal it's not a good solution.
Customers should have some kind of say in this and the companies telling us we have no right to sell/buy used/do what we want with a product we've spent 60 dollars on and they will host/lie/ do what they want with said sold object is irritating. Why defend that? Why don't you as the customer expect more while they figure out better ways? Do you want to spend 60 on a thing that has no certain future? For instance my first game, VERY first game still works in the console I bought it for, 25 years from now what's Sim City (2013) going to be like? Will it even work? Or will be Sim City from the 90's be easier to get working?
Why are people defending lesser prodcuts and companies who have MILLIONS and people who are likely to never see a fraction of that mass of cash? I mean how much did Activisions CEO make in 1 years? 100 people's salaries?