Microsoft Exec on Always Online Consoles: "Deal With it"

[ISeeColours]

My xbox and ps3 are not online, I can't afford internet.
Using my phone to tether for my laptop.

 

[Weaver]

So, can most of us agree we're just not going to buy this thing if it's always online?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Oh, that's why a topic popped up in Gaming Discussion. Because he got his own article here.
*sigh*

To debunk his reasoning: "Sometimes the electricity goes out. I won't buy a vacuum cleaner."
Stupid metaphor is stupid.
Unless the previous metaphorical vacuum cleaner didn't run on electricity and then the manufacturer decided it should because...*analogy explodes from stupidity*

Yeah. Some of us are pointing out how this stupid service-centric shit ruins the experience or skews the user-provider relationship into one of abuse*, but you'd love that of course. Bigger paychecks for you if it works after all.

(*I hope you love price hikes, lowered game quality and micro-transactions, because that's what always online has offered so far)

 

[Giyguy]

then i won't buy your console.

I have a feeling most comments on this article are going to be directed toward Microsoft because of the title... instead of the Exec himself.

There's a difference between an exec like that saying it (who probably doesnt play video games), and the corporation saying it.

not really. he, as an executive, represents the company. so if an executive is allowed to be an asshole to people, why should we buy from the company? what's the incentive?

it's like buying chocolate and as you leave, the seller calls you a whiny *****.

 

[Xarathox]

It's the oddest thing about Game designers. They simply won't get that we are not your average customer.

We're not the idiots who go to Apple and ask if their new Mac whatever comes equipped with the internet. We are not parents who have to bug their children when the printer isn't printing and asking if they should call the repair shop. We are not people who know nothing about cars and pretend to get what the mechanic is saying when he's explaining what's wrong and why it needs to be thousands of dollars.

We know computers. We know games. If you tell us the specs, a good number of us can tell us what it can do and what it can run, then explain it to the rest of us. While sometimes juvenile with opinions, we are probably the smartest consumer base there is for any market. Because we take great pains to understand our hobby.

Therefore, you can't make this market into sheep for the most part (InB4 Call of Duty). You can not really dictate what we should or should be ok with. We will bury your sales. We have mountains of Critics to make sure you understand that you're getting screwed here. Both professional and non. I find it amazing that the industry with one of the highest percentages of Consumer Intelligence is constantly belittled and overlooked by that very industry.

Simple Economics, The Gaming Industry is a Flexible Demand. You don't need it. And you can find other outlets to sate your itch if you can't control it. So the gaming industry must cater to their consumers more than any other industry. And before apologists get up and arms, let me pre-emptively say that yes, they fucking need to. That's not being entitled. That's being the guy with the money who decides who or what I spend it on. I do not owe the Gaming Industry my money simply because I've been in a gamer all my life. I chose to give them my money as long as they provide me with a service I desire.

That's why you have a favorite food or place to eat. That's why you have a favorite music or movie genre. That's why you even have a favorite place to vacation. Something about that subject makes you want to come back. If that favorite place to eat decided to change all the recipes, fire all but one waiter or waitress who picks and chooses who s/he is going to served based on how fancy their clothes are or how new their phones are... you'd get up, leave the eatery, and choose any other place on the street that doesn't do that.

If your favorite vacation spot decided to make an out-of-towner tax for all hotels of 35% of your bill, make it that each room has to have at least two different families in it, you'd find a new place to go.

But hell, let's dial it down. If that eatery says they that 'fucking hate queers', would you be comfortable giving them your business? I wouldn't. I'm not even gay. But it's an opinion that disgusts me. If that vacation spot says it doesn't need any money from any stupid northerners, that's fine. They won't be getting my cash because I am from the North and I don't need to make them a little bit richer when they can't stand me.

Likewise do I not need to give my money or time to a gaming company that shows such disdain or willful ignorance to what the gaming community is saying we want less of. There has been controversy after controversy with always online. Since day one. We hated it on Ubisoft's products, Origin, Diablo III, Starcraft II, Simcity, and we'll continue to hate it because we want to enjoy what we paid money for WHENEVER and REGARDLESS of what happens in our lives. And to stand in front of all of that, look at it, and say 'Whatever, we still want to do it' shows a callous disregard to my and our wants. And given that it's a hobby and not a inflexible demand... it's a death sentence.

My business is with the majority of yours; it's elsewhere, Microsoft. Wise up. Screw reading the 'changing times'. Pay attention to your consumer base. Or fail.

~edit whee! my 400 hundred post! I only been here five years. That's eighty posts a year! Math rocks!

+1 internets for you.

I've already been looking at the future of my preferred hobby these past few years, as I've been increasingly disappointed with the choices I've made regarding what platform I purchased. To be honest, I'm not even sure I'll even continue taking part in said hobby in the next few years.

However, as of right now the PC seems to be the best logical choice, as I'm tired of broken consoles and broken games not getting support from their own creators, while the PC community has a readily available base that can and WILL fix their shit for them in record time. Not to mention that a PC doesn't frag itself to death every few months due to shoddy materials and poorly designed hardware.

I'll certainly miss some of my favorite titles, as they're console exclusive. But, I'm sure I'll find something to replace them with.

 

[Pyramid Head]

The "Drama" of a stupid policy no one asked for ran by the woefully underequipped? Oh sorry for complaining about an extremely stupid idea. We'll go ahead and let white collar criminals like the ones in charge of EA stomp on our faces if it prevents "DRAMA."

Fucking jackass...

 

[Sixcess]

Yet another reason why nerds should not be allowed to speak to real people.

Anyway, looking forward to the announcement that he's seeking new business opportunities elsewhere, because if I was his boss I'd be calling for his head right now, personal twitter or not.

 

[Royas]

There is only one thing that is always online, and that is my PC. nothing else is connected to the internet.

That being said, i find it hilariuos that when people scream about PR bullshit and thne get a straight dela with it answer they scream even louder. i applaud him on having balls to just go out and said deal with it, like as if noone else know this is their stance anyway.
World is going online, like it or not, and you are going to have to get plugged in or go live in a cave. deal with it.

c)If the power goes out, noone is going to blame the vacuum company. People will blame you when they can't use the product they paid for, and they won't be able to use the product they paid for at all times.

if electricity goes out, you dont clame the cacuum creator, but if YOUR INTERNET goes out, you blame microsoft? double standarts FTW?

I'd blame them if they can't provide a stable server and connection from their side of things. And given that being always online is an artificial need (remove the requirement, the console would still work as a game console) blaming them for any interruption is fair.

Quick engineering lesson (maybe you are one also, but bear with me for the rest of the crowd). Points of failure are bad, bad design. Good design removes as many point failures as possible. Some can not be removed. Vacuum cleaners need electricity to run. That's a point failure that is dictated by the very nature of the device. It's also a point failure for a console, but again, necessary due to the nature of the device. A stable internet connection to Microsoft's servers would be a second point failure in this case, but it would be one that isn't native to the device at hand. It's engineered in deliberately, despite being a point failure, and that is the very definition of bad design. Good design = as few point failures as possible. Bad design = adding more point failures for whatever reason.

 

[IceStar100]

You know it's stuff like this that makes me want to leave consults to become a PC gamer. I have a friend who's already got a copy of some cities and pulled out the always online requirement. I got a consult for ease-of-use and less headache and building a PC and having to messing with it

 

[Nghtgnt]

I actually almost hope that they DO require always-on internet for the next Xbox - it'll make the decision about buying one or not a hell of a lot easier for me.

I live in an area that has a stable internet connection - internet or lack thereof isn't an issue for me. What IS an issue is that I have absolutely zero interest in hooking up a connection to anything other then my computer. I don't play online multiplayer with my Xbox, so forcing me to connect it to the internet when I don't want to would be insulting and infuriating.

 

[rasputin0009]

Always Online is suicidal. It's really hard to believe that they will actually go through with it but these are pretty damning rumors. Your average consumer (not people on gaming forums) will look at it and say no just as likely as your hardcore gamer because it's simply inconvenient. Look at the Wii (which the average consumer loved), and how barely any of them ever saw a connection to the internet.

Unless Microsoft does something so innovative that it blows everybody's mind. Like shooting holographics from Kinect 2.0's asshole into your living room. Then, they might have a chance.

 

[Lightknight]

I guess this generation is Microsoft's turn to screw things up so Sony can get some market share. Seriously, if you'd told me a year ago that Sony would be making most of the best choices with customers in mind regarding the next gen I'd have laughed at you.

I have a good internet connection and this likely wouldn't impact me. But I've avoided purchasing always online games for so many reasons including ethically. There are simply too many people in the world who still have limited network connections and forcing an entire system to be always online would make every game like that to me.

Why the heck should we be at the mercy of Microsoft's servers to be able to use a machine we've paid for to play games we've paid for?

 

[Church185]

Eh, even though I do prefer the PC side of the gaming spectrum, I also realize it's expensive as fuck to invest in. The upkeep cost might be cheaper, but not everyone can afford to put the initial 800-1000 dollars in their start up rig. It's why some people just wait for the price drop on consoles, and then shell out the 300-400 dollars for a console.

Actually you can build a PC that will run any current game for a reasonable price, and then the modular upgrades to your rig will cost you less in the long run while you are upgrading.

Decent little guide right here: http://www.squidoo.com/500-gaming-pc-build

Obviously you won't able to run everything on Ultra settings, but some PC exclusive titles on medium settings are still more graphically impressive than current console titles.

 

[Lightknight]

Eh, even though I do prefer the PC side of the gaming spectrum, I also realize it's expensive as fuck to invest in. The upkeep cost might be cheaper, but not everyone can afford to put the initial 800-1000 dollars in their start up rig. It's why some people just wait for the price drop on consoles, and then shell out the 300-400 dollars for a console.

Actually you can build a PC that will run any current game for a reasonable price, and then the modular upgrades to your rig will cost you less in the long run while you are upgrading.

Decent little guide right here: http://www.squidoo.com/500-gaming-pc-build

Obviously you won't able to run everything on Ultra settings, but some PC exclusive titles on medium settings are still more graphically impressive than current console titles.

Keep in mind that the ability to easily upgrade can depend entirely on what the motherboard is compatible with.

 

[Church185]

Keep in mind that the ability to easily upgrade can depend entirely on what the motherboard is compatible with.

That guide that I posted explains it better than I did in my post. The point I was trying to make is that people naturally assume that building a gaming PC costs a fortune, when really they are only hearing about the most expensive rigs.

 

[Osaka117]

It's good to show contempt for your audience, the George Lucas approach never fails.

 

[Lightknight]

That guide that I posted explains it better than I did in my post. The point I was trying to make is that people naturally assume that building a gaming PC costs a fortune, when really they are only hearing about the most expensive rigs.

It's an extremely valid point you made. The difference in cost means the difference between a machine that lasts 5+ years and a machine that just lasts a couple.

There's something to consider though, the need for more processing power has been somewhat held at bay by the limitations of the consoles strangling how much developers can actually program a game to do. The mere introduction of the next gen systems may create a significant advancement in the average machine's capabilities and render mid-low level machines moot.

I strongly recommend checking out cyberpowerpc.com: http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

They're pretty darn good on the price point and I've found their customer service to be superb.

 

[blackrave]

You want always on?
YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH ALWAYS ON!!!

 

[Headsprouter]

"Unnhhhhhh, #dealwithit", Jesus Christ, he sounds like an angsty teenager.

I don't want Always Online. I actually go offline on Skype and Steam to get privacy every once in a while. I don't always want other people around. Not to worry, though, there's almost no chance I'll ever be leaving the ranks of the PC master race, as it's called. I converted, and I say it's better, and less bullshit like this.

And I probably sound like an arrogant snob.

 

[TheKruzdawg]

any more outbursts like that and we can ride microsoft's stock price all the way down space mountain

I LOVE the Space Mountain ride! But it sounds like a ride on Mr Orth's "Deal With It" Always-On-Coaster would be about as much fun as the "It's A Small World Ride" extended to last 6 hours.

And does he realize that many gamers have played on his company's console without any internet connection whatsoever at some point in their ownership? And it didn't hinder my enjoyment of the system one bit when I first bought it. All I owned at the time were single player games, but I think my point is still valid.

That being, not everyone wants to always be connected to everyone else when they play games.