There is no benefit to the consumer in always-online consoles that doesn't also exist in online-optional consoles.
Try again, Mr. Mallat.
Try again, Mr. Mallat.
Ubisoft CEO Thinks Gamers Are Ready For Always-On Consoles
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Can someone explain to me how always online would benefit me? Cause I don't see it.
All I want to do is play a game whenever I want to, I repeat WHENEVER I WANT TO. Be that 20 years from now, or when my net is down. I don't care about the social stuff, I don't care of badges, achievements or anything else like that.
So tell me, why do I need this?
All I want to do is play a game whenever I want to, I repeat WHENEVER I WANT TO. Be that 20 years from now, or when my net is down. I don't care about the social stuff, I don't care of badges, achievements or anything else like that.
So tell me, why do I need this?
I thought the whole concept of a 'walled garden' was destroyed with the inception of Web 2.0? Well, an always online console doesn't necessarily become a walled garden, but it's pretty damn inflexible for my liking.
As if we don't have enough trouble with Steam and Origin requiring to be online for the most part (I've had trouble before with Steam requiring to be updated, being unable to play any game whatsoever & the only game I have on Origin is ME3, and I wasn't able to play that without a connection because the DRM couldn't validate fucking DLC).
*shrug*
As if we don't have enough trouble with Steam and Origin requiring to be online for the most part (I've had trouble before with Steam requiring to be updated, being unable to play any game whatsoever & the only game I have on Origin is ME3, and I wasn't able to play that without a connection because the DRM couldn't validate fucking DLC).
*shrug*
Hey at least he didn't insult everyone who doesn't live in a major city.
I still think Always online for things not on my PC is ridiculous, and even there i don't like it if it isn't part a Multiplayer focused game. If the rumors of the next 360 turn out to be true, or if Ubisoft starts making there Ass Creed games have Always online requirements, I am definitely not buying them.
I still think Always online for things not on my PC is ridiculous, and even there i don't like it if it isn't part a Multiplayer focused game. If the rumors of the next 360 turn out to be true, or if Ubisoft starts making there Ass Creed games have Always online requirements, I am definitely not buying them.
Wait. I think the point of this was that people will stop worrying as soon as the mentioned feature is shown to provide more benefit then issue. So we don't have to worry at all you guys.
They've basically told us not to buy this system if the issues outweigh the benefits. :3
Ubisoft is really ready to take a chance and throw caution to the wind, knowing that we may not even care to buy a faulty product, but they are still going to go forward. We've been telling them to try new things for year.
So I say good show triple A companies. Experiment. Play around with this.
And know that you have my utmost respect, even if I never spend a single dime on your products. ^^
(Note, some of this might be a touch sarcastic.)
They've basically told us not to buy this system if the issues outweigh the benefits. :3
Ubisoft is really ready to take a chance and throw caution to the wind, knowing that we may not even care to buy a faulty product, but they are still going to go forward. We've been telling them to try new things for year.
So I say good show triple A companies. Experiment. Play around with this.
And know that you have my utmost respect, even if I never spend a single dime on your products. ^^
(Note, some of this might be a touch sarcastic.)
Let me get this straight, three games (Assassin's Creed 2, Diablo 3, SimCity) that required always-on connectivity had terrible launches, especially the third game in the list, and somehow despite all this evidence that always-on is not only a bad idea but it's bad publicity as well, someone in the industry still insists it's gonna be great? Oh wait, has he forgotten how his own company's launch of AC2 went?
After the recent fiasco of SimCity and the previous Diablo 3, anyone in the industry still supporting always-on for games with primarily single-player experiences is either really stupid or just damn stupid.
After the recent fiasco of SimCity and the previous Diablo 3, anyone in the industry still supporting always-on for games with primarily single-player experiences is either really stupid or just damn stupid.
Ubisoft had stayed quiet for long enough that I'd almost considered removing them from my Do Not Buy list this generation...
NOPE.
NOPE.
I don't get it. What advantage is there to the company for always online DRM?
Is it meant to prevent piracy? But there were still pirated copy of the games around.
And people have developed cracks for offical copies, there were cracks for diablo 3 and for simcity which allowed to you to play offline.
Why do companies want you be always connected?
Doesn't it cost them money to develop the software and servers for it? And when it fails you get bad publicity, consumer backlash/anger and bad reviews.
So what reason do they for wanting to be always online?!
Is it meant to prevent piracy? But there were still pirated copy of the games around.
And people have developed cracks for offical copies, there were cracks for diablo 3 and for simcity which allowed to you to play offline.
Why do companies want you be always connected?
Doesn't it cost them money to develop the software and servers for it? And when it fails you get bad publicity, consumer backlash/anger and bad reviews.
So what reason do they for wanting to be always online?!
Yeah...that game is kind of sickening.Snotnarok said:
Actually, I hesitate to call it a "game", or even really "social".
The players are not interacting in any way that couldn't be scripted as an automatic response.
Apart from that, it's just the usual blitz of skinner box traps you find in most Facebook games.
But I suppose that's EA's ideal game in a nutshell: minimal effort content, maximum addiction (grind), self-advertising (I'm sorry, "multiplayer"), and absolutely crammed full of micro-transactions.
Feynman: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Well, I don't see the reality of crappy Internet, server failures, online being to the company's advantage not the user's, or any of the other pretty well-reasoned points already in this thread going away. What's Ubisoft's next move, buying up all the Internet infrastructure so they can improve it? What are these supposed user benefits?
In other words, this is all PR to con you into believing it's in your interest that companies sell you a 'product' that is in fact a rental agreement tied to your unique account. The bigger the lie, the more often repeated, etc. etc.
Want to re-sell that game? You can't, it's on your account. Want a refund? You can't, you subscribed to the service and received benefit from it by installing the game. They dictate the terms and there're no handy consumer rights to fall back on.
The greatest irony is that this already mostly describes Steam*, which isn't even always-on (which on the one hand suggests that consumers can and will accept loss of rights in return for benefits, but on the other proves that you can be absurdly successful, avoid giving consumers most of the rights in dispute here, and still not be always online).
Perhaps more importantly, the Steam userbase would go nuclear if Steam started to pull what games companies regularly do, that of turning off older products because it's costing them money for no return on investment. There's an implicit social contract of 'we'll keep hosting your games, you keep buying stuff in our Steam Sales' that just doesn't exist with always-online servers for an individual game. For Steam, such an action compromises their core business model, so it's only a risk if they go bust. For the games companies, it only damages their brand with people still wanting to play older games, and their major revenue comes from the newest shiny pushed out this year e.g. FIFA for EA.
In short, I trust Steam to an extent because their business depends on them hosting my games for a long long time. I trust games companies with always-on servers not at all, because they have no financial incentive to keep them running beyond a couple of years.
* It is true that Steam do refunds. Once per account...
Well, I don't see the reality of crappy Internet, server failures, online being to the company's advantage not the user's, or any of the other pretty well-reasoned points already in this thread going away. What's Ubisoft's next move, buying up all the Internet infrastructure so they can improve it? What are these supposed user benefits?
Power/control/legal reasons. Plus you can do all sorts of nice circumventing of product law if you sell your game as a monthly service. Office 365 is a non-gaming example. Autodesk 360 is another. Microsoft aren't switching to a mode where you can rent Office yearly instead of buying it once & then upgrading at your own pace for kicks.Sneezeguard said:
In other words, this is all PR to con you into believing it's in your interest that companies sell you a 'product' that is in fact a rental agreement tied to your unique account. The bigger the lie, the more often repeated, etc. etc.
Want to re-sell that game? You can't, it's on your account. Want a refund? You can't, you subscribed to the service and received benefit from it by installing the game. They dictate the terms and there're no handy consumer rights to fall back on.
The greatest irony is that this already mostly describes Steam*, which isn't even always-on (which on the one hand suggests that consumers can and will accept loss of rights in return for benefits, but on the other proves that you can be absurdly successful, avoid giving consumers most of the rights in dispute here, and still not be always online).
Perhaps more importantly, the Steam userbase would go nuclear if Steam started to pull what games companies regularly do, that of turning off older products because it's costing them money for no return on investment. There's an implicit social contract of 'we'll keep hosting your games, you keep buying stuff in our Steam Sales' that just doesn't exist with always-online servers for an individual game. For Steam, such an action compromises their core business model, so it's only a risk if they go bust. For the games companies, it only damages their brand with people still wanting to play older games, and their major revenue comes from the newest shiny pushed out this year e.g. FIFA for EA.
In short, I trust Steam to an extent because their business depends on them hosting my games for a long long time. I trust games companies with always-on servers not at all, because they have no financial incentive to keep them running beyond a couple of years.
* It is true that Steam do refunds. Once per account...
Article title is misleading and designed to stir up crap. You're doing this more and more, Andy... stahp.
He said we'll embrace it when our worries are irrelevant. This is incredibly obvious and probably not worth a story. The only thing that's inaccurate in his state is that obviously, our worries haven't been allayed yet, so there's no way we're "ready" for an always-on console. (To all potential quotes: Note that when I say "Gamers", I refer to the majority, not you and me who reject it at a base level.)
He said we'll embrace it when our worries are irrelevant. This is incredibly obvious and probably not worth a story. The only thing that's inaccurate in his state is that obviously, our worries haven't been allayed yet, so there's no way we're "ready" for an always-on console. (To all potential quotes: Note that when I say "Gamers", I refer to the majority, not you and me who reject it at a base level.)
But people are clearly buying into this, I'm not saying this is good or should be supported but is it hard to blame someone when people actively give money over to play minimal-effort the game?Atmos Duality said:
I wish game players would look more closely at all this stuff, always on means they can tell you when to play the game, tell who you are playing with, who you got to buy it, can promote other games, when they want to shut the game off for good, tell what you're browsing, how long you play, what kinds of games you play etc. It's not smart to feed into this for many many reasons but I'm sure we get that by now.
Seriously anyone else reading this, that next big game you've been looking forward to getting, if it has always online, don't buy it you're screwing more than yourself.
I am long since passed the point of trying to rationalize purchases made on whim.Snotnarok said:
But that's how social games generate revenue (outside of ad-hits and ad-partnerships): people committing on a whim.
Agreed, I have little else to add here.
Ahh, but that's going to be the rub; finding the tipping point where the positive desire is outweighed by the negative potential inconvenience.
It's why all of these pro-Always-Online arguments begin with something like "Everyone has internet", while completely ignoring the fact that the system by its very nature is introducing a large potential fault into the system.
And it's that point I think we need to press and people need to understand; it doesn't really matter how good or bad the game is when the system its attached to is objectively flawed and unstable.
MMOs and Smartphones (the quintessential "practical defense" for always online) are online BY NECESSITY, but these companies want to extend that towards games that DO NOT NEED IT.
We?ll need major regulations and laws placed on the video game industry before any type of "service" dependent console is released.
I'm sick of getting burnt by companies with online products doing whatever they want after they get their grubby hands on my money. If you pay a massage parlor per hour to get a massage they aren't allowed to pocket your money and kick you out 10 minutes later to "focus their resources" on more lucrative patients. Game companies should not be allowed to do what is essentially exactly the same thing with their servers and content.
And if games are fated to become more like "services" there definitely needs to be some sort of mandatory minimum service duration set before hand that companies will need to commit to and budget for so you don't end up with MMO style surprises of "Oh you weren't ready to quit this game? Too bad, the game quit you. No refunds."
I'm sick of getting burnt by companies with online products doing whatever they want after they get their grubby hands on my money. If you pay a massage parlor per hour to get a massage they aren't allowed to pocket your money and kick you out 10 minutes later to "focus their resources" on more lucrative patients. Game companies should not be allowed to do what is essentially exactly the same thing with their servers and content.
And if games are fated to become more like "services" there definitely needs to be some sort of mandatory minimum service duration set before hand that companies will need to commit to and budget for so you don't end up with MMO style surprises of "Oh you weren't ready to quit this game? Too bad, the game quit you. No refunds."
"As soon as players don't have to worry, then they will only take into account the benefits that those services bring,"
....I keep trying to think of something witty to say, but...there's really nothing to say to this.
Yes, Ubisoft. When people don't have a reason to worry about something, they don't worry about it. Logic. We are so proud of you. The thing is, we do have a reason to worry about it. A lot of reasons. Most of them related to things completely out of the game industry's control.
Unless Microsoft decides to overhaul the entire world's Internet infrastructure for the release of a game console, we will have ample reason to worry. Until that happens, please don't say stupidly obvious things that just make you look out of touch.
....I keep trying to think of something witty to say, but...there's really nothing to say to this.
Yes, Ubisoft. When people don't have a reason to worry about something, they don't worry about it. Logic. We are so proud of you. The thing is, we do have a reason to worry about it. A lot of reasons. Most of them related to things completely out of the game industry's control.
Unless Microsoft decides to overhaul the entire world's Internet infrastructure for the release of a game console, we will have ample reason to worry. Until that happens, please don't say stupidly obvious things that just make you look out of touch.
Look the guy is the head of a company that just happens to publish games. That is to say his probably not a gamer his a business man and all the advice he gets and stuff he hears about come from other business men who are probably also not gamers heck they probably don't know how to turn on their work computers without a call to the head of the IT department who is also a business man but who could programe their VCR back in the day without the assistance of a ten year old.
When such people look at the industry they see online multi-player, MMO's and social sites making money hand over fist and they figure hey looks like everyone is conncted to the internet all the time any way it can't be that big of a deal anymore. It's the same thing that the heads of EA, Activision, Microsoft, Capcom, Sega and Sony all think because they are all basicly business people and thats what they know how to basicly balance the books and walk away with a big fat check when it all goes belly up.
When such people look at the industry they see online multi-player, MMO's and social sites making money hand over fist and they figure hey looks like everyone is conncted to the internet all the time any way it can't be that big of a deal anymore. It's the same thing that the heads of EA, Activision, Microsoft, Capcom, Sega and Sony all think because they are all basicly business people and thats what they know how to basicly balance the books and walk away with a big fat check when it all goes belly up.
if gamers weren't terrible consumers, this would not happen.BrotherRool said:
It's an andy article. Find the source link at the bottom and read the actual news story there.lacktheknack said:
