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

[Lightknight]

I've said it many times before, but I think one more time is good.

Your servers have a tendency to crash and the Internet connection is still too unreliable to make an always-on console more of a benefit than a liability to me.

I guess I won't be buying your new Xbox.

#dealwithit

I understand your post is in the negative but I want to address one potential grey area in your post that people may not get. The point where you say that because two things aren't reliable it is a liability instead of a benefit. This implies that if fixed, they can eventually become a benefit. Always on will NEVER be a benefit to you. Why would it be? Games that are online when they're supposed to be but can be played offline when not necessary are what benefit you. Can you tell me a reason why being unable to play your system offline would help you EVEN if their servers are reliable and the internet connection is perfect? Don't get me wrong, the ability to connect with friends like what the ps4 allows is nice, but being unable to go offline at all only hurts us. It's the inability part. There's no reason why we wouldn't want to be able to do both where possible.

As I said in another thread, 720 may have always online but 1080 will try to push for a constant stream of blood and stool data. Hopefully we'll draw a line with the system that demands a rectal probe be inserted during gameplay. I don't know if I'm being too subtle here but what I'm saying is that they're being invasive. The funny (stupid) thing is, I don't know that biometric data is entirely off the table in the future if they could do it affordably. Not the stuff I jokingly said, but finger print scanners, heart beat trackers that learn patterns of the typical user, face tracking and recognition (already available with the kinect). Imagine a day where systems could potentially prevent two people in the same house from playing the same copy of the game without paying some bogus fee. While hopefully unlikely, I'm not too sure they wouldn't try to do it at some point. Interestingly enough, this stuff would be great to discourage theft of your machine.

This is only their attempt at DRM and perhaps a few other things. This is not a decision for a console to make. This is a decision for individual IPs to make and for consumers to be able to decide not to buy them because of it. This is a foolish and invasive method that assumes a criminal of all of us. The thing about a console forcing it is that I could not illegally download the 720, I had to obtain the physical machine to use it. So while I might cringe at software for doing it, I understand their desire to DRM it with always online even though I (and I'm sure a few other gamers) won't buy their stuff whenever we find out that they've done that. But it makes no sense to DRM hardware. Not unless you specifically want to piss off consumers and treat them like thieves. I'll also point out that piracy of console games is a heck of a lot harder than pc's and pc's will always work offline even if the software doesn't. So if their goal is to make us go to their competitors then so be it.

 

[veloper]

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.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

 

[Alar]

Hot damn, Jim! You were seriously channeling some badass mojo towards the end there. Very nice.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

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.

While you do need an online connection to obtain your games on Steam, it will still function if you lose that connection, that's the difference.

 

[Jman1236]

The more people keep talking about DRM on the next xbox, the more I don't want it and the more I'm willing to pay in full for a ps4.

 

[Waddles]

Me likey. Australian internet sucks. While the current government is implementing a high speed broadband network, if they lose the upcoming election it get put on the backburner. The majority of aussies wouldn't be able to play consoles if they were always online.

 

[DrOswald]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

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]

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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! [/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.