Azriel Nightshade said:
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.