Jimquisition: Why An Always-On DRM Console Would Be Dumb Dumb Dumb

[piclemaniscool]

I'm glad that idiot is getting media attention. Surely "deal with it" is a presentable catch-all reaction to disgruntled fans and will only promote the next console.

Next week I hope Jim can bring to light the fact that EA is twisting consumer complaints into an anti-LGBT movement. Please Jim, tear them a new one. Do it for the little guys.

 

[DataSnake]

Another issue: planned obsolescence. If the xBox 720 requires always-on verification, what happens when those servers are shut down in an attempt to force users to upgrade to the next next-gen console? In addition to the console becoming worthless, with no backward compatibility (a very real possibility if the PS4 is any indication), that would also make any game you bought on the 720 impossible to replay years down the line.

EDIT: that'll show me for commenting before the video ends, Jim actually addressed that point.

 

[Nghtgnt]

MS needs to realise that it produces a luxury item. As much as gamers are willing to put up with shit to play their favourite games, we all realise that we don't really need to play them. These are things we fill our time with to entertain us. Comparing it to things like phones and vacuum cleaners is ridiculous. Those things are necessary items. We put up with problems with them because the need for them will not go away. If the electricity goes out or the mobile network doesn't cover wherever we happen to be, we wait until those services return and attempt again.

If crappy servers go down just that one time too many, we won't wait any more. We'll go buy a PS4 instead. Or maybe we'll get a PC, or even watch a movie or read a book. Whatever example you can think of. But if your luxury product doesn't work exactly when it is convenient for us, then don't expect our patience to last very long. You can't demand that we "deal with it", you need to deal with us. If you're not fulfilling our requirements, then we're not going to give you our money. Simple as that. You need to work around our demands, not the other way around.

The stupidest thing about all this is that our demands aren't even that complicated. We don't really care about all this fancy gimmicky shit. We just want a machines which has sufficient power to run games, and for those games to be fun. Maybe a few online features as well, like online play and download services. We'll gladly give you money for that. Instead you'd rather overcomplicate everything, treat us like criminals right from the word go, and try to squeeze as much money out of us at every single possible opportunity.

Well said. One thing I'd add is the difference between an "option" and a "requirement" - consumers will like something as an "option", but dislike it when something is a "requirement". Hopefully someone with a degree in business can phrase that better then I, but I think that would be a stronger argument because given enough time the connectivity argument will be rendered moot by the slow march of progress in infrastructure, or by that being a small enough population to not impact the company's profits significantly enough.

 

[gorfias]

And that's how the Ouya will outsell the next Xbox. Deal with it.

My buddy's is on the way. He payed into Kickstarter.

I think it is a little behind the curb, but at $100, if it can be replaced by a Tegra 5 in a couple of years, I don't think that will even be an issue. $100 is a throw away item.

I've lost a couple of really good games because a company stopped having a server work. I didn't know when I paid Walmart $10 for a newly anti aliased copy of the original Halflife, I was only renting it and it would stop working from no fault of my own.

ITMT, enjoy:

 

[RodSk8Dude]

[...] phones [...] are necessary items. We put up with problems with them because the need for them will not go away. If [...] the mobile network doesn't cover wherever we happen to be, we wait until those services return and attempt again.[...]

The funny thing is, I can still use my cellphone without internet or reception, to listen to songs, play games and a few other stuff.

Also, I live in Brazil. Games are popular here. But the minimum wage converts to around 300 US dollars, consoles and games, because of taxes, are 500 and 100 US dollars, respectively. It's already hard to have these, just recently me (20) and my brother (29) were able to start buying original products, and I will happily buy original games if they're not full of this kind of bullshit.
And the internet? It's also very expensive. I have a fast internet, but I share it with my brother, so I can't rely on it too much, and although I have a very big family, I don't know ANYONE who has a fast internet, so always online would be really stupid here. And the market really has a lot to expand around here. I mean, the country has around 200 million people, even if most don't have conditions, imagine the part of it that DOES, it still would be a considerable market, wouldn't it?

 

[triggrhappy94]

So, Google tried to give everyone in San Francisco free Wifi every where. Something consoles could take advantage of. Microsoft sued Google--Google was making a play on the OS market by doing this--to keep them from doing it.
Now, Microsoft demands that everyone be online all the time.
What, does Microsoft think its a Republican Senator now? They think they get to break things than ***** about how the tings they just broke are broken?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-knocks-senate-banking-committe

 

[Dead Seerius]

Just the episode I was expecting!

You know, it's funny; two years ago I would see 'PC gaming is dying!' being proclaimed all over the internet while people couldn't wait to see what the next generation of gaming consoles would offer. Seems like a bit of a role reversal now.

Anyway, consoles will die if they end up pushing this bullshit DRM. It's revolting how little such DRM supporters think of us consumers. It's insulting. I'm still hopeful that MS isn't stupid enough to include always-online DRM in the Nextbox, but if they do... adios.

I predict "deal with it" will become the rallying cry of the public as they boycott MS if all this turns out to be true.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

So true. And so, so sad.

Here's to hoping it's just rumors.
Oh, but don't think you're SAFE once it's release without always on requirement!
Ever hear of "System update required to play this title"?
Boom! Now you're always on required after you bought it!

Remember PS3's removal of Linux support?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

How long until there's a shiny new jim sterling 'deal with it' gif? XD

I need this immediately.

NOT SOON ENOUUUGGGH!!

Someone make it NOW!!!!

Got it done as soon as could, I might have a higher quality version up later.

[image/]http://th642.photobucket.com/albums/uu145/bliat/th_brilliantmoot.jpg[/IMG]

Simply fantastic work.

I'll be using this frequently.

 

[VoEC]

Great episode as always. But I have one question:

Does anyone know where to get/listen to the new background music? It's awesome (and I think it's by Danny B.?)

 

[Sean951]

And so Nintendo will once again save the industry. I can already imagine how a conversation about Always Online would go:

"Extra features? Psh, we're a game console. You play games on us. Why the hell would we add features and drive up costs to add something that other products already provide?"

And so they will continue to just be Nintendo. Making Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Kirby, and Pokemon games that just print money.

 

[DrOswald]

Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

I'm not asking this to be contrarian or witty, I'm generally curious. Mainly because the only two PC games I play are WoW and LoL, both on an 5 year old iMac. So I'm a bit out of the loop.

First, I need to define two terms:

True requirement: A requirement that is essential to the function of a thing. The thing could not possibly work without it.

Artificial requirement: A requirement that is unneeded but is forced on the user by the seller.

Any requirement, true or artificial, comes at a cost to the consumer. If I want to play an internet multiplayer game I have to have a stable and fast internet connection. That comes at a cost to myself beyond the base cost of the game. To put a number on that cost, I recently moved. My old wired solution was no longer going to work. I had to purchase a wireless range extender, a wireless card, and some other equipment. This cost me about $150 to establish this kind of stable internet.

Now, I don't hold it against Riot that I needed to spend $150 to continue playing their game, because it is a true requirement.

Next, steam. Steam does not actually require always online. Once you connect to your stream account once you are good for several weeks and you only need dial up speed and reliability to do that. The rest of the required connection is all a true requirement. You cannot download a game without a connection, you cannot chat with friends without a connection. The vast majority of required steam connectivity is a true requirement, the service could not possibly work without it. The core functionality of steam itself requires a connection, and the artificial requirement that I connect once every few weeks is very minor.

In addition, Steam offers a great service. With incredible sales and very easy management of my games I have seen a huge personal benefit using Steam. The tiny cost of connecting to the internet once every couple weeks is easily compensated for by the excellent service rendered. Had I not cared about having a reliable, fast connection I could have never spent that $150 and I would be no worse off using my previously purchased steam games.

On the other hand, the core function of a console does not require an internet connection. An always on console is a purely artificial requirement, a potentially significant cost to me for which I gain absolutely nothing. For many this is an insurmountable obstacle. And the only reason the next Microsoft console would have such a requirement is because Microsoft wants control.

They are, essentially, making us pay for their toy and offering nothing in return. When we say that we don't like this the closest thing we have gotten to a response is "We don't see the problem. Deal with it you whiny drama queens."

I don't personally care about the rumored always online requirement directly. My problem is the blatant anti consumer attitude. I do not want to do business with these people. They are rude to me and this is just one incident in a long history of annoyances. Owning the next Xbox is not worth dealing with their shit.

 

[proghead]

It's been said before: when your internet connection goes down, wouldn't that be a great opportunity to play some games on your console? How's that for always-on MS? This is such a bad case of head in the clouds, it's not funny anymore. Every programmer will tell you that you can't rely on any network connection. You just can't.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

I'm not asking this to be contrarian or witty, I'm generally curious. Mainly because the only two PC games I play are WoW and LoL, both on an 5 year old iMac. So I'm a bit out of the loop.

I think it's because Steam has an offline mode. And there are many ways to get games you bought working when trying to play offline because on PC there's almost always a solution to every problem.

It's most likely going to take a long time to use most of them but in the end they give you more control over how you game than an always-online console ever would.

OT:
I always wonder why some executive with decision-making power hasn't seen shows or opinions like this or why they never seem to be aware they exist. All we as the common folk can ever do is speculate on how they feel, and whenever they DO speak out they say something that makes them seem like they're living in some sort of hypothetical reality where everything always works and there is an unlimited amount of money for everyone.

The games industry REALLY needs to make an effort to be more transparent with their decision-making process and have more open lines of communication with their consumers to allow them to see and hear these kinds of opinions presented on the Jimquisition and other very thoughtful video game journalists.

Because when they do things it always seems so.... out of touch. And I wonder what happens to a human being along the line of their life to make them start making decisions like the really shitty ones we always see today in the industry...

 

[conanthegamer]

I live in a rural area outside of San Angelo, TX and my internet is mostly reliable. I often visit friends and family in San Antonio, TX. One friend I stay with has no internet. My relative I stay with has internet but no router. I still take my Xbox down there and play it. But if Microsoft does this the only thing I would be doing is transporting a brick. I wonder Microsoft's end game is to get away from consoles period. Between Steam and Mechwarrior online, I am slowly moving that way.

 

[Xman490]

When you said "congratulate Nintendo," I had no idea what you were talking about. When you mentioned "having the best exclusive," Lego City Undercover came to mind. When you joked about the WiiU not getting Colonial Marines, I sighed.

With surprisingly well-animated and acted characters and addicting piece collecting, that Lego game sounds really good.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

It's about time to start suing developers for imposing always-on DRM and failing to sustain the conditions for it. It's an obvious breach of contract, because the obligee (ze publisher) is denying a service, for which the customer has paid. Imagine buying milk from the store, paying for it and getting just the plastic jug without milk in it, because the cows aren't able to produce milk right now. It's exactly the same.

What I'm trying to say is that it's a legal issue. This is not a debate. People need to turn to court otherwise this bullshit will continue in the future.

the breach of contract would only work if their contracts were not written to allow the exact same thing we all hate. If they mark it as a service, they by all economic means take all our rights away.

I.e.

In economics, a service is an intangible commodity. More specifically, services are an intangible equivalent of economic goods.
Service provision is often an economic activity where the buyer does not generally, except by exclusive contract, obtain exclusive ownership of the thing purchased. The benefits of such a service, if priced, are held to be self-evident in the buyer's willingness to pay for it. Public services are those society (nation state, fiscal union, regional) as a whole pays for through taxes and other means.
By composing and orchestrating the appropriate level of resources, skill, ingenuity, and experience for effecting specific benefits for service consumers, service providers participate in an economy without the restrictions of carrying inventory (stock) or the need to concern themselves with bulky raw materials. On the other hand, their investment in expertise does require consistent service marketing and upgrading in the face of competition.

Hence the rise of ultra long EULAs that we just want to click through to play our games. People do not read how steadily every bit of 'ownership' has been stripped away from us. Basically, by being dismayed by what we're playing and planning to protest, we are the ones breaching contract. As long as games change nomenclature to a 'service'.

 

[Naqel]

Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

Last time I checked, Steam runs ALL my games with offline modes in them perfectly fine when my internet is down.

It's even kind enough to let me chose if I'd like to update whenever possible, or if I'd rather it not mess with my modded copy of X-Com or another game.

 

[gamegod25]

I can't see why else they could have such a dismissive attitude towards their customers, especially considering that selling 3 million copies of a game is considered "below expectations". If games were still being made cheap, then perhaps they could get away with that kind of attitude, but considering how much money they are losing, even when games are selling well, you'd think trying to please people would be a much better idea than trying to siphon money off of them any way that you can.

As for the always online. I honestly cannot see the logic behind it. We are not yet in a world where reliable fast broadband is widespread enough for this kind of usage. In five to ten years, I'd imagine this idea could work, but right now we simply are not ready for it. So why are they so insistent? I cannot see the advantage for them.

That's something that I feel gets overshadowed amid all the other shit, that EA and other big companies are hemorrhaging money because they are just plain poorly run companies. They are spending far more than they can reasonably expect to make, making their products less desirable in a vain attempt to squeeze out a few more pennies, and showing outright contempt for their customers.

It's no wonder CEO's are being forced to step down and the market is crashing when they refuse to learn from even recent mistakes, either too proud or stupid to consider any alternatives despite almost certain failure. It's become an industry so nearsighted and sure of itself that it can't (or won't) see the giant pit just down the road.

And as for being always on, clearly anyone who thinks it is a good idea has never lived in an area with poor connection and just takes for granted that not everyone can be online all the time. As many have pointed out willingly excluding a fairly large percentage of potential customers (I believe the number of non-online 360's was like 20-30%) is just stupid and strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Rad Party God]

My internet connection is fine most of the time and that's the key word, most of the time, it always baffled me why would I want a freaking console to be "always online", I mean, I love MMOs and I love online gaming in general, but there are times where I'm not in the mood to play with strangers or friends and I just want to play some good ol' fashioned single player goodness, heck, there are times when I'm in the mood to use the Wii (!).

I mean, it's neat that consoles can be connected to the internet and it's definitely neat to use my Wii for YouTube and Netflix (the most use the little fella is having right now), but it's not a freaking requirement, it's not necessary to play, say, Mario Galaxy or Okami.

Heck, not even Steam itself uses my internet connection constantly, I can perfectly live by connecting it once every few weeks and keep playing anything I want offline.

If these rumors are true, I can see a big rope haging from the ceiling with Microsoft's name on it.