Ubisoft CEO Thinks Gamers Are Ready For Always-On Consoles

[Baresark]

Ubisoft in their efforts to make Always online games have failed ridiculously without exception. They are not the people to go to for an opinion on this. How can they say that having never succeeded themselves and have anyone consider them as honest. Couple with that, he says himself, "they have to provide a clear benefit" and so far no games that have any always on connection has ever shown a clear benefit to the end user.

The only cases that have shown this to be necessary is MMO's, and I don't know anyone who only want to play MMO's. I mostly don't play them at all and most people I know pretty much avoid them. You could even argue that people who play them are in the minority based on the the big dawg (Blizzard). They have at most had about 12 Million subscribers at a single point in time and that is from people from continent playing the game. On a worldwide scale, those numbers are not that good. But it's still damn impressive from a business standpoint, from a single game stand point.

Edit: Realistically, it's stupid to weigh in on this if you are a publisher of games. As a publisher they should only concern them themselves with delivering games to their customer base, not weighing in on hardware policy decisions. You make yourself just look bad to gamers who aren't for that.

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Is it really that hard for industry people just to stay quiet on the subject? There's not even confirmation that the Xbox720 (please don't name it that) will even have it...

 

[MattAn24]

I will not get the next consoles. I do not like the always online requirement and have been dissapointed in all games that have it(that don't need it), I think it's a tyrannic move and highly unethical.

That being said...
I get what he means. I felt the same way about Steam for a long time, but I gradually got used to it due to its great sales and the easy access.
I still worry about servers shutting down one day and that I'll lose my games, but I've gotten used to it and that's the point; That players will eventually accept the always online console(s).

The reality is that there are enough people who don't care, who will buy these consoles and it will be a success, at least economically, in the long run.

You better get some lube for these $399 buttplugs, 'cause you're going to feel shafted for the first few months.

The good thing is.. Sony's outright announced the PS4 WILL be fully playable offline, because they're not complete asshats. They know people play games without being connected to a server. It's entirely optional. So.. Happy days?

I too am concerned about "losing my rightfully purchased games" because a server goes down. This shit bothers me as well. But it's a lot nicer knowing that Sony's officially stated that it won't be a worthless, unplayable brick just because you don't happen to be on PSN. It's Microsoft that seems to be pushing it.. And personally, says a lot about Western gaming..

 

[MattAn24]

Oh, just up and die already AAA publishers. Die so that the talented designers you enslave can split off into smaller, awesome studios, the loyal consumers get to keep their rights, and the executives can go back to whatever elderitch pit that they were spawned in.

I sure do hope Square Enix Japan Production Division 1 aren't classified as "AAA" and isn't in that "culling"..

It's why I've mostly given up on Western gaming completely. They're screwing *themselves* over. Say what you like about certain Final Fantasy games or whatever other Japanese-made title, at least they make damn certain you can play a single-player game.. While not online. No one is forced to like any single FF game, so no one HAS to like FFXIII (or VII, or IV, or whatever) so I hope you get why I'm saying this.. The standard/quality of the games are subjective, the way they're delivered isn't. I fully admit there are games in the series I don't particularly like/enjoy/didn't care enough to finish.. But that doesn't make them bad/evil, they're just not for me, why should I take away the enjoyment from others who think otherwise? Anyway..

Having read a bunch of neat information from the Ultimania Omega guidebooks for FF, etc from Japan (albeit translated), the Square Enix first-party dev team/s put *a lot* of love and effort into their games and lore. Extremely obscure references to past/other games, minor character design choices being incredibly important in the grand scheme of things..

Yeah.. I'll be fine with a lot of Western AAA devs buggering off and letting individual dev studios do what they do best, without a bad influence being put on them..

 

[Justin Smith]

Oh I get it!
This is not only the end of the current generation of consoles.
It's also the end of the current generation of AAA developer CEO's.

 

[Xarathox]

This just in:

Another Vidja Gaym big wig talks out his ass. Sees colors.

 

[iniudan]

Damnit Ubisoft, right when I was starting to see you with a better eye, due to Blood Dragon been standalone and selling for $15, on top of that awesome trailer and for scaling back your DRM scheme on PC, now no longer sure if will buy Blood Dragon, has I was thinking it finally lifting my boycott.

 

[Entitled]

As a copyright reform aplologis, and as someone who feels generally bothered by corporate attempts at more control over digital data, I'm really worried about always-online games, because they are the sole aspect of all these impractical, arbitary, bothersome limits, that could genuinely WORK.

I don't care what DRM they try to put in e-books and music and films, because those can always be replicated in basic pdf and mp3 and avi files, so in practice. As long as we are talking about data pouring out of a speaker or a screen, DRM can always be easily and flawlessly circumvented. Thus their publishers are competiting with the possbility of piracy, and they have to comprmise, they need to be accessible, cheap, and rational. They need to accept that the times are changing, that access to data is only getting easier, and that they need to find profitability based on that knowledge.

Gaming is the only one industry, where based on the technological backround of how server-side calculations work, and how programming can lock software to a specific platform, really give publishers the possibility to ignore all reforms, and stay in their primitive user-unfriendly form, which sounds very profitable on the short term, but eventually it will lead to the gaming industry living in it's small anachronistic bubble from before the reforms, where every other medium is easily accessible, while games can still pretend scarcity, and whatever the publishers demand. Ban used sales, delete old games, charge monthly fees, lock out countries, there is no alternative anyways.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Dear CEO of Ubisoft,

When a CEO of another company was "pressured" to resign after a single twitter conversation about always on consoles, don't repeat what they are saying if you want to keep a job.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Do you guys intentionally look for what news stories will cause the most controversy?

Yeah. It gets page views. Which gets them money.

 

[jp11]

Do you guys intentionally look for what news stories will cause the most controversy?

Yeah. It gets page views. Which gets them money.

In fairness, I think it would be weirder if the Escapist staff chose not to report this story, given how relevant it is to the state of gaming today and what is says for future.

 

[-Dragmire-]

Eh, with a stable constant connection, it feels like that would just be used as an HD ad highway that will make me pay even more per month in over cap fees. I don't see how any kind of benefit will outweigh that for me.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

My console is offline. I don't care for multiplayer except via Steam and don't want constant updates forced on me. Any future console has to work on and offline. Make it always on and you'll lose millions of players and alienate the rest. Period.

 

[Frostbite3789]

In fairness, I think it would be weirder if the Escapist staff chose not to report this story, given how relevant it is to the state of gaming today and what is says for future.

If this was a for fun blog, I'd agree with you. But this is a site designed to make money. Money based on page views and ad clicks. So I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

...

...

...this is all a bit much for me.

What a fucking moron.

Who do you think it was who protested vehemently an Always-On feature for the Xbox? The uninterested public? No, it was gamers. People are practically counting the 720 out of the console race if it follows through. That's how ready we are for always-on.

We will not be 'ready' for always-on until we have stable internet everywhere in the world. And as it is, that isn't even the case in the US, and it's definitely not the case in Australia. And even then you will have to deal with the annoying percentage of the population who would rather have the ability to play offline instead of arbitrarily not being able to do that, myself included. Not to mention the ability to play games after the publisher has decided they aren't happening anymore.

How do these people even stand up straight and breathe at the same time.

 

[NiPah]

I'm sorry I'm just not seeing the benefits an always on console has over a console that can go online but does not require it at all times. Always-on is a step in the wrong direction, my 360 and PS3 can be online at all times but do not require it, why would gamers be ready for an option to be taken away from them?

 

[CardinalPiggles]

What benefits are we talking here Ubisoft? Leaderboards? Instant patches? That's it isn't it? Gimme a break. The benefits of being online when I want to be online outweigh any fucking "benefit" you guys can come up with.

Remember to vote with your wallets people.