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

[Littaly]

What concerns me the most about the "always-on" approach is not that I could be kept from playing because my connection is down today or tomorrow, although that thought doesn't really appeal to me either. What concerns me is if these games will still be playable ten or twenty years in the future. What happens when Microsoft's servers are shut down? Will my copy of the game be useless?

It both bothers me because I wanna be able to go back to the games I'm playing now in a couple of decades, but also because it says something about how publishers look at the games they put out. I mean, isn't a game worth more to them than some use-and-throw entertainment meant to be played only when it's new only to then be forgotten and never touched again? You don't even have to be of the opinion that games are art in order to believe that they are worth preserving and have value that lasts more than a couple of months after launch.

It's not just always-online DRM schemes that are worrisome in that regard (there's a similar problem with DLC), but the most infuriating because it's hard to see what benefits we really get from it.

 

[TheSteeleStrap]

I never had a PS3, but it looks like I'm looking into a PS4. I can live without any more Halo and Gears. The next Xbox (whatever they're calling it) WILL flop, there's just no way around it.

 

[jamail77]

I can't add much to the conversation that hasn't already been said. In the sense of "always on" that SimCity was or Durango is rumored to be no, there is no device that is "always on" like that and it is ludicrous and downright insulting to think such a world exists. To twist the meaning of those words and people's understanding of our technological landscape insults his fans, Microsoft's followers, and his own position and the experience that comes with it.

It's opinions like that which continue the dangerous corporate world we live in. Companies keep doing things based on the mantra that "we're in it to make money" (which isn't completely the reason for their existence but that's a whole other issue) until one day they do something that could make them that much more extra money from a certain perspective. In reality, the execution of that idea proves disastrous and companies that form a big part of the economy and foundation of a country collapse and never recover or are never trusted again. This causes a lot of problems as we are seeing now (partial reason) This is because it inconvenienced and angered its consumers; to make money you have to be willing to compromise and do things that sound bad for you at first (sell a digital copy of a AAA for $5?!?! OUTRAGEOUS?!?!) but actually help sustain your company.

This is very basic thinking really. We can't keep living in a world where there's 1 to 3 big players that are too big to fail and have most of the public flock to them. Our economic system encourages that (or the U.S.A.'s does anyway). We need an economic system that encourages diversity and marketing that lets consumers know they have other great options available in similar sectors. They can flock to one or can they flock to multiple places to get different advantages for the same service or product but no one equally talented business gets overshadowed by their much bigger, more stagnant counterpart.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

c)If the power goes out, no one 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 don't blame the vacuum creator, but if YOUR INTERNET goes out, you blame Microsoft? double standards FTW?

Let's say we're playing a game together. We're both sat in your living room, console hooked up to the TV, playing a game split screen.

Now Let's imagine this is an xbox 360 and we're playing Halo 3, just for the sake of argument. The internet goes out. Notice how we're still playing the game? Yeah. That's because the console doesn't always need to be online.
Let's say the internet comes back on but I've gone home. You fancy playing some Red Dead Redemption for the story, so you whack that in the drive and fire it up. Through some unforeseen series of events, a meteor strike occurs and knocks out your ISPs network. You don't even notice. You're still playing RDR quite happily.

Now let's imagine it's a 720. We're playing Halo 5 or whatever number they're up to now. You're just about to line up a perfect headshot from the other side of the map. The internet goes out. Suddenly, we're back at the home screen! There's an error message saying we were disconnected from the internet! But wait a minute, we weren't even using the internet, all the processing was being done on the xbox and sent straight to the TV! What the hell Microsoft?! Now I've gone home again, and your internet is back online. You decide to play Half-Life 2 Episode 3. It doesn't even have a multi-player mode. You're Gordon Freeman again, crawling through air vents, to push a button and stop the combine from doing whatever it is they're up to this time. You've just navigated a really tricky section, shot your way out of hell and come out with a handful of hitpoints. You can see a health dispenser. You run towards it. Suddenly the I.S.S. falls out of orbit and lands on top of your local switch board, cutting off your connection. You're inches away! BAM, BACK AT THE HOMESCREEN, DO IT ALL AGAIN WHEN YOUR INTERNET IS BACK ON. HOW ELSE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW YOU DIDN'T STEAL THIS GAME?

Fuck always online.

 

[jamail77]

Not to mention the energy costs that "always on" forces on people who can do it but don't want to. No matter how advanced our technology gets that's not good for consumer satisfaction, the economy, technology, energy usage, or the government. It is not a sustainable business model. Period.

 

[Kargathia]

Except that I'd be extremely surprised if SimCity turns out to be profitable. At this point it's safe to say that it'll be selling way below expectancy.

SimCity was still #1 in computer games on Amazon weeks after being delisted. I have no idea if it's still there, but if you think that's unprofitable, or anything of the sort....

I don't even know what to say, honestly. People have gone so far as to take their own expectations and portray them as fact and then act surprised when things don't turn out that way (and to be fair, they still MIGHT, but I suspect "below expectations" will only be an issue because these are the same guys who thought Dead Space 3 should be able to sell 5 million units).

I call it "Fox News Syndrome," based on the 2012 election, but I suppose at this point "disgruntled gamer syndrome" would work just as well.

SimCity is the kind of blockbuster where if it were selling at anything below #1 in a period not shared with an even larger behemoth (CoD, AC, WoW), you would know for sure it had bombed horribly.
Dead Space needed to shift 5 million copies because they threw busloads of money at it, and needed to recoup that, along with the losses suffered on less successful projects (past or future).

SimCity is a full re-boot featuring an entirely new engine (no recycling of assets), requires substantial server space, and additional server space band-aids due to the widespread connection issues at launch. All these things do not come cheap.

A substantial amount of its sales figures also stem from pre-orders, further excarbated by that pre-views were critically well-received. This matters because DLC is a sizeable chunk of expected revenue, and this will take a big hit if the playerbase quickly dwindles, as it's doing right now over at Diablo (initially sold like hot cookies despite the widespread complaints and issues).

My guess is that financially this is not an outright disaster, but it won't do much more than scrape even - a bad thing in a business model centered around blockbusters paying the bill for all the smaller and less successful games.

 

[Daveman]

Does he not get that if the power doesn't work, we blame the electricity company rather than our vacuum cleaner company? The issue isn't that we don't trust our own internet connections, it's that we don't trust the servers provided to function, as was the case of the Diablo 3 and SimCity launch. Also the fact that the internet connection is entirely unnecessary to the functioning of the device as opposed to the mobile phone network for a phone to work and electricity for a vacuum cleaner to work.

That's kind of the thing with analogies. They're shit.

Edit: My mate has an Xbox 360, he can't go online with it at university because they don't let them on the network in our halls. He would therefore be unable to play ANY games at university if this was the case. I guess the next Xbox isn't for anyone who might want to go to university?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

All the more reason not to waste money on it. Online is extra not default, get over that.

 

[MPerce]

Well, then.....that wasn't handled very well.

You'd think by this point, the game industry would've figured this out: regardless of how you feel about always-on DRM, DON'T FUCKING TALK ABOUT IT ON A PUBLIC FORUM. All you're gonna do is piss people off.

But I'm not too concerned with that right now. Microsoft still has to sell the damn thing to me, and as of now I don't want any of the next-gen consoles.

 

[Slyaap]

Ok....I'll deal with it. I've decided not to buy the next version of the Xbox.

Dealt with.

Couldn't have said it better myself. On the upside of this, they've made it very easy for me to decide which next-gen console I will be buying.

I don't understand how they could possibly thought that this was a good idea.

Captcha: poetic justice
I think captcha is looking into the future and seeing the nextbox absolutely flop due this always online bull shit.

Yes, the next gen console war is already over and won as far as I'm concerned. Many other people I've spoken to feel the same way too.
But let me make it clear, it's not that this one guy has said enough in this one statement to put me off Microsoft, it's just the latest in a long line of fan disrespect.
MS consistently treat gamers like dirt, and while I don't believe Sony are much better I've personally found the PS3 experience: Games, DLC, Interactivity and Customer Support to be deserving of my loyalty.

But that's me

 

[MrGalactus]

Why do we just have to take the industry's shit? Surely we must have some power as consumers?

 

[Carnagath]

Customers who don't like what you're selling won't buy it. #dealwithit.

Yes they will. They'll buy it and complain anyway. Look at SimCity. #sadbuttrue

I could perhaps consider that possibility if the nexbox was the first next gen console, but it won't. The PS4 will come out earlier this time, capitalize on all the early adopters and start building a userbase in the most optimal way possible, only having to compete with the WiiU, which is such a pile of dogshit that noone wants to develop for it. All it needs is a handful of killer apps in order to completely crush Microsoft. Why would anyone switch from PS4 to Xbox 6 months or a year down the line? Or, if you are an early adopter, why would you skip the PS4 and wait for the Xbox? I honestly see no reason, unless you like Halo so much that you are willing to buy a console with always online DRM and Xbox live fees just for that. They are really shooting themselves in the foot this time.

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

Hold on let me just look... Hmm yes im still a PC gamer.

I do really like to watch the net rip into someone, always good to watch.
I also like memes.

This gunu be gud! Ueh! he!

 

[Something Amyss]

The PS4 will come out earlier this time

Since you're basing your whole statement on this idea, I'm curious as to how you got this announcement before any news agency and before Microsoft has even announced their console. There's no evidence in terms of release dates and no reason to believe that Microsoft won't try and be competitive. If you do have a crystal ball I'd be interested to know.

However, the reality is that gamers are notoriously bad consumers, and we'll be too busy screaming "shut up and take my money" to care about the flaws until after the fact.

 

[Signa]

Why do we just have to take the industry's shit? Surely we must have some power as consumers?

At this point, the only way to win is to not play at all.

The industry has forgotten that they are competing against not only the games released this year, but all games released ever. I think gamers have forgotten that as well, but in times like these, looking up some old classics might be a good idea. Old games don't have online DRM, and usually feel like they were built with a lot more love and care than current titles.

 

[Carnagath]

The PS4 will come out earlier this time

Since you're basing your whole statement on this idea, I'm curious as to how you got this announcement before any news agency and before Microsoft has even announced their console. There's no evidence in terms of release dates and no reason to believe that Microsoft won't try and be competitive. If you do have a crystal ball I'd be interested to know.

However, the reality is that gamers are notoriously bad consumers, and we'll be too busy screaming "shut up and take my money" to care about the flaws until after the fact.

I suppose you are looking a direct quote of a release date from the companies themselves. Such a thing indeed does not exist yet, but Sony seem to be considerably ahead of their hardware development cycle than Microsoft, judging from the amount of information that they have officially released about the system (which is, well, everything, apart from the console's form). It is also widely said that the PS4 will be released within 2013 (Christmas season) by many gaming-related content creators and publications, including tweets by developers and people like Totalbiscuit. Unfortunately I don't have the time to compile a host of links for you right now, so if you choose to dismiss all that as completely baseless rumor until you see something on Sony's website, then that's your choice.

Also, my argument is based on the idea that noone without a rock solid high speed connection will buy the Xbox, period, and out of those that do live in Metropolitan areas with great connections and no bandwidth limits, I still don't see why one would choose to buy something that doesn't allow used games, is held hostage to Microsoft's server tempers (which have brought us inspiring technological marvels such as the RROD and GFWL) and will brick your entire game library once it is discontinued, instead of something that doesn't do all those things. I think it's a pretty valid question.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Why do we just have to take the industry's shit? Surely we must have some power as consumers?

It's because they figure the vocal minority isn't big enough to affect their sales and that in the long run we'd cave in and buy their crap and join the masses. As for myself, I just shrug, give them the finger and plug in my PS2.

 

[Requia]

Customers who don't like what you're selling won't buy it. #dealwithit.

Yes they will. They'll buy it and complain anyway. Look at SimCity. #sadbuttrue

Except that I'd be extremely surprised if SimCity turns out to be profitable. At this point it's safe to say that it'll be selling way below expectancy.

Er, isn't SimCity around 50 million in revenue already? They've more than recovered the cost. Though I won't be surprised at all if it fails to meet the ROI they wanted.

 

[mb16]

my vacuum cleaner CANT work without power
my games consoles COULD work without the internet
....there is a difference

also if the power goes off i dont then have to wait 30seconds for it to turn on and then start from cleaning back from the beginning.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

There's something really funny about people using twitter to endanger their own jobs. I reckon it's probably because the people doing it always seem to be under the impression that they're being smart at that moment... and they be wrong.

The analogies are terribad.