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

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Kael Arawn said:
Your Gaffer said:
Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?
Lol well put. It's like the sky being blue, it's a forgone conclusion.

It seems Jim is just afraid of one of the possible futures for consoles as most other people on these forums.

Ppls wake up and smell the coffee, eventually the majority (if not all) of your electronic entertainment devices will be always on in one way or another and you really are being pissed with Microsoft for simply being the first to adopt a inevitability of the future in practice.
It is possible, almost certain really, that eventually all our electronics will essentially always be online. But that day is not yet here. The required infrastructure has not been created. Just because it will eventually be true does not make it a good assumption for the now.

Besides, just because it is likely that in the future all devices will be connected to the internet does not mean they will all require a constant connection. Microsoft is not an early adopter of a inevitable future practice. They are creating an artificial barrier to the use of their product based on the assumption that right now everyone has access to a stable internet connection, an assumption that we know to be false.

Its also criminal how Jim tends to only focus on one side of the proverbial coin in relation to issues he covers and said side is always aligned with his personal opinion.

Wheres his rant on the benefits of the modern digital paradigm and how much it has reduced the cost of sales at launch vs the loss of pre-owned gaming? (As it truly is one or the other, the industry cant sustain both).
Are you saying that digital sales have reduced the cost of launch day games and therefore we just don't need used games? Because that one is just wrong. Digital copies cost the same as physical copies. There has been no reduction in price at launch. In fact, Jim did an episode dedicated to this fact and how stupid it is for everyone involved: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5684-Dont-Charge-Retail-Prices-For-Digital-Games

Besides, there is no evidence that the game industry cannot sustain both. You are just pulling that assumption out of your ass to support a point you have no actual evidence for.

Or a rant about the fact that consoles are used for ALOT more then gaming these days and that the audience for a device like the NEXT is infinitely bigger because of it and most of those function require a internet connection?
But the fact remains that the core function of the console, playing games, does not require a connection. My tablet does a lot of cool things if it is connected to the internet. But that does not mean that when I am on the subway and have no connection it should kick me off of Angry Birds. Sure, streaming a video requires a connection but that does not mean that playing Mass Effect should too.

I would even go as far as to say hes slightly bigoted towards the subject.
Jim offered a large and detailed list of reasons why always online for the next Xbox is a bad idea from the view of both the consumer and the producer. You have offered nothing but vague assertions and questionable assumptions. A bigot is one who is intolerantly devoted to their opinion and ignores sound evidence and reasoning against their opinion. Given the circumstances, I am going to recommend against you calling others bigoted.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
I think the problem is most of these executives likely either get their information from "focus" groups that mainly consist of well to do kids or parents of said kids who don't realize, or care, that high speed internet connections are not the norm. Or the groups consist of non-technical people who don't realize that they might not meet those bandwidth requirements because they think think any internet connection is enough. So when asked if they would be fine with an always online system they just say "Sure sounds fine"

Also some of the links provided in other post that go to sites defending the "Always Online" end up showing just how ignorant the proponents of this are. One link had a guy saying every FPS you've ever played was always online. That is a huge face palm right there because I've played FPS for years and rarely do I play them multiplayer because I lack a good connection. It's hard to hit something when one minute it's right in front of you and the next it's behind you.




On the topic of Steam it seems people forget their history and are subjected to large amounts of disinformation. I've seen lots of people who argue the always online DRM is fine try to point at Steam and say that it is the same thing. Then claim that since so many people accept Steam they will accept these other DRM setups.

Besides being a complete misrepresentation of how Steam works, as others in this thread have already pointed out, it also fails to take into account Steams origins. Steam was not rolled out as a DRM service, it slowly migrated into that role over time.

Steam was originally rolled out as a match making service for Valve games, with auto-updating (because when new patches rolled out people had issues with not everyone having the same version), instant messaging service, and anti-cheating measure. Plus it was completely OPTIONAL on their games, so if you didn't want it you didn't have to use it.

It's only over time as they added more features and made deals with other developers and publishers to become a digital distribution network for other companies as well that it has shifted to a requirement. And likely that is more of a contractual obligation as the other publishers likely want proof users own the games before allowing them to download them.

But even then the most important fact remains that steam allows you to play offline. It's more like a verify on install connection requirement, similar to Windows OS does these days. And needing to reconnect for a quick verification every few weeks is easy enough to do.

The other thing with steam though is they have ridiculous sales all the time. I've got over 50 games on steam, most of which I bought for 50-75% off. This includes triple A titles which I have picked up for $10-$20 along with lots of smaller indy games for around $5.

Best time for good deals is during Summer and Winter sales when most publishers have the vast majority of their catalogs at 33-50% off. Last holiday sale I got 5 games for a total of about $25.

If I bought all those games from normal retail stores I'd easily have paid well over $1k. But as is I've probably only paid $300-$400 for all those games. And that's over the course of the last 4 years since I started heavily using Steam. Steam is often cheaper then the "used" games at Gamestop during their sales.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Give 'em hell, Jim!

I want to so those publishers that care so little about the experience of paying customers crumble and fail. There will always be tools and people to make games, they don't NEED to be owned by publishers.

Let the industry crash! We will watch it burn! BURRRRN!
 

kmg90

New member
Jan 21, 2009
78
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
superline51 said:
If the console industry does go tits up, I'm not entirely sure what I will do, considering I DESPISE gaming with M&K.
Use your controller?

Maerx said:
MS = MacroSuicide.

Let's hope this is just rumors.
Then why don't they just come out and say so? Everything about "Durango" is bad news for everyone. They could use some plus points right now.
This is what I don't get, Microsoft easily could avoid any bad press by just having a "Playstation meeting" style press conference and just clear the air so all of the bad news surrounding the rumored system.
 
Mar 26, 2008
3,429
0
0
Great work Jim. Maybe you should box up your final "Deal With It" ready for replay when the big three eventually fall in a screaming heap through their own negligence of their fan base.
 

Shodanbot

New member
Apr 7, 2013
36
0
0
Sorry, ages old comment, but I couldn't ignore it... I switched round the paragraphs because the second paragraph buggers up your first paragraph,(it lingers more than the first, mostly because of it's irrelevance.) so I'll get that out of the way first. anyway:

QUINTIX said:
From my bigoted perspective, this vitriol filled reaction to perceived threats (especially anti-feminist ones) is to be expected from our latchkey generation with many of its "young men" staying teenage boys into perpetuity.
Wow, wow, wow... This is not about gender issues or the immaturity of men. This is a different human issue: commerce, trade and business.

QUINTIX said:
I'll disagree with Kevin Dent here too https://kevin-dent.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/5/in-the-world-2929
however, I will agree with him & Manveer Heir that the Orth is not deserving the bile he's receiving.
Orth is more or less getting the response you can expect when he tells established or potential customers that if they "don't like it? Deal with it!". It's insulting to openly say that. Never mind suggest it.

However, funny thing about contemporary commerce is that you, I or anyone else can just respond: "We don't have to..."

Hardly an immature reaction, just a human one.
 

null_pointer

New member
Mar 14, 2013
16
0
0
First of all, excellent episode, Jim. In my opinion, this is among your best, and thank god for you.

Now, to the issue:

As the owner of an IT business, I've dealt with many people who are unable to get their internet working properly in their home. I've seen all kinds of causes; hardware malfunctions, incorrect network configurations, bad cabling, and pretty much everything else that CAN go wrong with basic home networks. In most cases, these issues are fairly minute to the trained eye; (DHCP is the duct tape of the networking world) but far beyond the scope of knowledge that the average internet user would obtain. The other thing is, while I work, I observe what people are doing. And in about 80% of the houses that I visit that don't have a current internet connection, SOMEONE IS PLAYING A GAME on a current-gen console.

So, from my point of view, gamers not only enjoy games WHEN the internet is down, gamers enjoy games BECAUSE the internet is down. Not to mention the fallibility of the US's infrastructure (ranked 33 in the world at the time of this post http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/ ) and shitty server programming paradigms. This example may be purely anecdotal, but I feel that my experience represents a majority of gamers out there.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Lightknight said:
veloper said:
Wishful thinking. The industry has already managed to do this on PC and so they will succeed on the consoles aswell.

Not all PC games have always-online DRM either and it all started with just a couple AAA games like ME and Spore. None of the early boycots gained much support and PC gamers are supposed to be the fanatical and savvy crowd. M$ and Sony can follow exactly the same path on consoles, as this slow boil has succeeded before.

So you make a new xbox and you add just a chip and some firmware to facilitate DRM schemes and then you gradually, over the course of several years, lock down more new releases with always-online DRM.
Us old hands will still complain, but the new blood won't see it and that's all that matters. They already bought the console; the first generation of games worked fine and now they want the latest, top rated AAA games for their consoles even if it's a hassle to make it work.
Software-level always on DRM is completely different from hardware-level always on DRM. Think of all the complaints Jim has about just software-level always on DRM and then multiply it by EVERY game. Imagine being unable to play a movie because your internet is down.

One makes us unable to play certain games offline, the other renders a machine we've purchased unusable offline. PC's cannot be made to do that unless some vital hardware component of PCs is suddenly monopolized and forced to require it. Unlikely since any competing hardware company that refuses to do it would suddenly get all the business.
The new blood won't know about the difference and moreover I doubt they will care. M$ isn't stupid. They won't lose their biggest audience and they will have done their research. Escapists may like to think so, but our minority opinions make no difference. We don't matter; we're 70% PC gamers here and our console gamers are atypical.
My bet is that M$ will prepare the hardware, but won't go full nazi immediately, but rather gradually. Whatever they do, M$ will succeed. Time and time again our collective willingness to make a stand for consumer rights has proven to be very low.
 

ineedbettername

New member
Oct 18, 2009
4
0
0
The gaming industry is in such a titanic climb right now that they're about to stall straight into a nosedive. Gamers are wising up to the crazy shit that publishers and developers are trying to get away with, and it's not going to work for very much longer.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
ineedbettername said:
The gaming industry is in such a titanic climb right now that they're about to stall straight into a nosedive. Gamers are wising up to the crazy shit that publishers and developers are trying to get away with, and it's not going to work for very much longer.
Oh I think it will. EA games are still selling well. Their DLC and microtransactions are selling even better.
Those big evil companies - they know us better than we know ourselves.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Adon Cabre said:
It's very hard to lose a connection in California, because the internet carrier suffers the most when you decide to move onto another. I had fast internet at work, college and at home; and not to mention my cell phone.
So you're using the same short-sighted fallback as Microsoft.
 

svenjl

New member
Mar 16, 2011
129
0
0
mrblakemiller said:
That last minute was immaculate. The conceit we're being shown is unconscionable. I'm almost looking forward to some big crash (I'm getting too old for hardcore gaming anyways), and seeing what rises from the ashes.
How old is too old? I'm 34, married , 2 kids, work etc blah blah blah. The biggest issue for me is lack of time (maybe that's what you meant). It's why I gave up on Dark Souls. Just couldn't grind out the hours required and get over all the dying! I still haven't finished Fallout NV. I say never too old though. I just resent the ever expanding list of ideas, processes and activities that people expect me to participate in and conform to. That's what makes grumpy old men I guess.

OT: Frankly, the suggestion of an always online console in order to play disc based games is appalling and incomprehensible. Lucky that Sony is offering a product that still allows users to choose whether to connect or not, and to play single player games offline regardless of connectivity status. I have really enjoyed my 360. It's 5 years old and never broken down, but it might well be joined by a PS4 in the next year or so.
 

Adon Cabre

New member
Jun 14, 2012
223
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Adon Cabre said:
It's very hard to lose a connection in California, because the internet carrier suffers the most when you decide to move onto another. I had fast internet at work, college and at home; and not to mention my cell phone.
So you're using the same short-sighted fallback as Microsoft.
[HEADING=3]#deal with it! :D[/HEADING]


Anyways, I've recently begun to have quite a change of heart with consoles. All of this buzz surrounding the Xbox720 (Durango) and PS4, and all of this speculation across the tech industry has me leaning toward a PC exclusive life. Well, a PC and tablet. Technology is evolving more rapidly than many realize, and the industry will leave these consoles in the dust in about three years. (I can easily see the iphone 7 having a 2.4 GHz dual core processor.) I'm pretty sure that by next year, you'll be hearing about developers tapping out 100% both console's graphical and computer processing capacity.

Getting back to the point, I don't play any online multiplayer, but I need a stable connection for Netflix and other social media software on the PS3. The world is becoming too connected to not be always on line. I watch a lot of small tech convention interviews and panels. Entrepreneurs are really pushing innovation toward a smart city.

I guess that's why I'm really liking what I see from Watchdogs.
 

sorsa

New member
Dec 19, 2011
71
0
0
Dear Jim Sterling, I am your number one fan, but why have you switched to this unpleasant fascist layout? The only thing you have advocated genocide on is bad practices in the games industry, you don't need to associate(dirty) yourself with those guys.

-your number one fan
 

cheetahguy

New member
May 19, 2012
10
0
0
grey_space said:
cheetahguy said:
actually this has been confirmed and Microsoft is making the new Xbox with DRM, they even gave the prices and said "if your internet connection goes out for 3 minutes you Xbox will shut down" what an epic fail.
where has it been confirmed? Thought it was just unsubstantiated rumours at this point
It was actually revealed on escapist news now, its a pretty new video so when Jim made this it was before they said "yes its DRM confirmed" though Microsoft may pull out and make it offline accessible, but I really don't think they would do something that smart last minute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUDtLeRGSr4&list=PLAbMhAYRuCUiwLRJCOE-Oen0Dfqd1TLrB&index=41

p.s the video is about an interview with the new Xbox's pricing but its revealed near the end that the new Xbox will have DRM.
 

cheetahguy

New member
May 19, 2012
10
0
0
TomWiley said:
ineedbettername said:
The gaming industry is in such a titanic climb right now that they're about to stall straight into a nosedive. Gamers are wising up to the crazy shit that publishers and developers are trying to get away with, and it's not going to work for very much longer.
Oh I think it will. EA games are still selling well. Their DLC and microtransactions are selling even better.
Those big evil companies - they know us better than we know ourselves.
Oh I don't think so. EA may try and act like they are doing well but lets face it, EA is scared of all the things they say their not. (here's and example) No matter what EA says they are scared that Steam is going to do better than Origin and if you want to know why its because if EA says "Origin is doing so much better than steam" then why did EA (this is true!) want to buy steam at 1 million dollars, yeah that's right EA offered steam 1 million for the rights, so when EA says their not scared of steam then it begs the question "if your so quick to insult steam on how small it is, then why were you begging and pleading and go so far as to offer 1 million just to own steam".
EA just likes to pretend that they are unmatched but in reality they are the type of company that's "to big to fail" but is also "to oblivious to survive"
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
TomWiley said:
Oh I think it will. EA games are still selling well. Their DLC and microtransactions are selling even better.
Those big evil companies - they know us better than we know ourselves.
As well as their games might be selling, they're still posting weak profits when they do, and significant losses when they aren't. Why? Staggering production and marketing costs.

So it's more like EA is playing a dangerous game.
If consumer confidence and good will backlashes even a little (by accident or realization) it hurts them a lot more.
 

HalfTangible

New member
Apr 13, 2011
417
0
0
Can I play devil's advocate here for a second?

Diablo 3 and SimCity's launches failed because of volume that the servers couldn't handle. If a console always had to be online and connected to a server, then publishers would be able to see how many people are online at any given moment and better prepare for games with always-online connections since they would have to be linked to a server.

... Having said that, this one not-quite-braindead idea does not negate anything you said about the poor internet service many areas have, alienating gamestop, the lack of a need for it anyway for many games, etc etc.