WaitWHAT said:
*Snip snippity snip until...*
Would anyone out there actually buy this console? I mean, like, what would it take to convince you to put up with always-online? I mean, Simcity and Diablo 3 still sold, didn't they? How much of a problem do you think this would cause?
I'll take the first part last, if I may.
Yes, Sim City and Diablo 3 sold well, but you have to bear in mind that once the cash register stops ringing and the screaming from people being unable to play goes quiet, there aren't that many people on the servers. Diablo 3 came out in May of last year and sold three and a half million copies. By June, just over two thousand were playing at 5pm on a weekday. Sim City sold just over a million copies in its first two weeks (no mean feat since Amazon pulled the plug), over half of which were digital. How many are using it now? I imagine you could probably knock two or three zeroes off the sales numbers.
That's a mountain of cash that was made on the front-end followed by minimal server load on the back. Why did the outrage happen? Because the publishers figured out that they didn't need to sink piles of money into servers; they just needed to wait for the screamers to go away and their current servers would be sufficient. They'd already been paid. They didn't care. $60 ($80 for those who embraced the purple shaft and bought the deluxe edition) times million is quite a nice payoff for a little bad PR.
If someone were to sell an always-on console, there'd be a flood of sales at the start, a massive public outcry, the ensuing debacle of "we weren't ready/didn't think it would break/are working to solve the problem/are drinking our celebratory champagne so please fuck off", and then the thing would work because over nine-tenths of the people who bought the stupid thing would put it in a closet or take it back to the store (for a fifteen-percent loss. Gotta love margin cushions). Assuming, of course, that none of the consoles broke (always a danger with new tech) or was broken by irate players. The company would have its money and then cast about for a new shiny to offer the magpie public.
I won't put up with always-online unless, as has been argued by others before me, the game I'm playing actually needs it. Multiplayer requires online, at least if there's real-time interaction. Otherwise, I'll be content with clicking on a link and watching my browser refresh or posting a move and waiting for my opponent to respond. Those are the only reasons I can see for needing an online connection for a game. In all other instances, my gaming is a solitary experience and dammit, I want to be left alone! I don't want someone tapping my shoulder when I play, stealing my kills or interrupting my narrative with "CAN GIVE SOJJJ?"
Would I buy such a console? Yes, yes I would. At a pawn shop, about a year after it released. For ten bucks. So I could show future generations an example of what hubris looks like when it takes physical shape.
On Topic: Mr. Sterling, if you could hear me, I'd applaud. If I could reach you, I'd shake your hand. As it stands, I thank you and sincerely hope you'll continue to call people on their arrogance, their ignorance, and their failings.