*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff

[3dilettante]

Like the hard drive in the PS3, or analog triggers on the controller. Requiring always-online is telling the developer: "Don't be afraid to incorporate features that rely on an internet connection, we will guarantee it is there".

Until a console maker steps up and announces that it has worked with a major telecom provider to build a utility backbone to the service, I don't think they can promise that.
All they can promise is that their console will break if a whole raft of things beyond their control doesn't do exactly as they say.

Code your game to take advantage of it, and podunkville's switchboard burning down becomes your fault.
On the other side, give devs the ability to hook into your service with the sort of consummate skill that EA and Ubisoft has shown with their net code, and watch it be your fault.

It's the next logical step in gaming. We can quibble about whether now is too soon, but it's going to happen regardless, if not this coming generation, the next one.

I look forward to the day that some major console company overextends itself and winds up offering an information service to tens to hundreds of millions of people.
Watch what happens if there is a replay of the PSN hack that bricks hundreds of millions of devices, just because.

I'd be worried about that outcome, because once you start getting mentioned on the scale and pervasiveness of things like electricity and telecommunications, a whole new set of rules starts to apply.

Until the rumors are cleared up as to why exactly this 3 min interval check is needed it's a free for all of speculation and backlash.

It's so you know your place, and know the length of your leash.

 

[Rockster]

Nothing is stopping the developers from creating always on games if their game requires it by design, but they should stay away from anything else. So far not a single good reason for having every game relying on always on.

Offline consoles stop developers from creating them. I'm confused why everyone thinks existing game features are all that will ever be needed and not any new ones. So we don't want games to do any more than they can do today because that's all we'll ever need and it will allow offline play? Come on, I bet they need an internet connection if for nothing more than natural voice recognition and search. There are going to be suites of cloud driven API's and web services to do all sorts of crazy things. What if your single player game of GTA6 showed actual recent events, live video, or sports scores on in-game TV's and billboards, or streamed in your favorite Pandora channels to the in-game car stereo. Or you could ask your Xbox for help on the current level you are on, and it posts it in the background to your social media net, and pops responses back up for you in game. And I'm not creative but I think we have some folks in the industry who are and might dream up some magical new possibilities. Which they won't bother building if some people will never experience it and have to do double the work to support on and offline.

As bkillian correctly states... by requiring online, it guarantees devs will do something with it. If you don't require it they won't. Messages on the back of the box don't cut the mustard. PS2 and Dreamcast had modems you could get for them but they only had like a handful a games for online multiplayer. Xbox built ethernet into the system and basically got laughed at for it, but interestingly enough, people actually liked to play online games. All the near-sighted, DRM fearing, FUD mongers needn't worry. No one is going to force you to buy this thing. And, maybe in the end you'll find yourself surprised that an internet connected console can do cooler stuff than one that isn't.

 

[Jwm]

Really bugs my wife when the router screws up or Live is down for some odd reason, I usually get the fifth degree about it!.

We watch TV via the Xbox, so I guess I tend to notice it going up and down a bit more lately compared to maybe 1-year ago (all wired connections).

There are yet no compelling reasons for me to not use my 360's for their current roles next-gen, other than games that is. So I might keep them in place for media center duties, and just game on the new systems.

 

[DJ12]

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/04/xbox-live-down-microsoft-working-on-a-fix/
From September last year, I remember major nelson also apologising for an outage about a week long.

Seriously, stop with the bd that xbox live is never down and it must be people so stupid they cannot configure their routers.

Hell, theres even an issue right now.

Users may experience difficulties with the following services:
Joining other Xbox LIVE members in online games
Affecting the following LIVE Platforms:
Xbox 360 Console
4/4/2013 11:49:11 PM PDT:
My phone hasnt copied it all but its a fault with matchmaking

 

[function]

Until a console maker steps up and announces that it has worked with a major telecom provider to build a utility backbone to the service, I don't think they can promise that.
All they can promise is that their console will break if a whole raft of things beyond their control doesn't do exactly as they say.

This is singularly the most annoying things about this discussion. There are lots of potential issues that could disrupt the service - because "a service" is exactly what an "always only online console" is - but any attempt to keep this in the conversation is difficult because of naive users simply LOL UR INTERNETS WIFI SUCK UR FALT.

Code your game to take advantage of it, and podunkville's switchboard burning down becomes your fault.
On the other side, give devs the ability to hook into your service with the sort of consummate skill that EA and Ubisoft has shown with their net code, and watch it be your fault.

If you make an "always only online" console knowing full well the reality of the internet that users all across the world face then actually it kind of is your fault. You know that users will run into these issues just so you can serve as many adverts as possible.

On a slightly different note, this is a hell of a way to wipe out all of people's game collections every few years. Every game purchase is a rental if this comes to pass.

 

[-tkf-]

Offline consoles stop developers from creating them. I'm confused why everyone thinks existing game features are all that will ever be needed and not any new ones. So we don't want games to do any more than they can do today because that's all we'll ever need and it will allow offline play? Come on, I bet they need an internet connection if for nothing more than natural voice recognition and search. There are going to be suites of cloud driven API's and web services to do all sorts of crazy things. What if your single player game of GTA6 showed actual recent events, live video, or sports scores on in-game TV's and billboards, or streamed in your favorite Pandora channels to the in-game car stereo. Or you could ask your Xbox for help on the current level you are on, and it posts it in the background to your social media net, and pops responses back up for you in game. And I'm not creative but I think we have some folks in the industry who are and might dream up some magical new possibilities. Which they won't bother building if some people will never experience it and have to do double the work to support on and offline.

As bkillian correctly states... by requiring online, it guarantees devs will do something with it. If you don't require it they won't. Messages on the back of the box don't cut the mustard. PS2 and Dreamcast had modems you could get for them but they only had like a handful a games for online multiplayer. Xbox built ethernet into the system and basically got laughed at for it, but interestingly enough, people actually liked to play online games. All the near-sighted, DRM fearing, FUD mongers needn't worry. No one is going to force you to buy this thing. And, maybe in the end you'll find yourself surprised that an internet connected console can do cooler stuff than one that isn't.

I am pretty much living in the cloud (one more than one lvl plenty of my work life is dead when something doesn't work, i get it. But what i don't get it this obsession with forcing everything to be online all the time for no real good reason.

What you mention is loose change,i understand i can't ask you to come up with something so good it sells something that very few likes. Maybe it's because we already know what always games can provide, since we have plenty of them. We call them MMO's. The internet has been here for years and so has the possibility to create these "awesome" mindblowing always on games. And so far nothing has been delivered that makes the cost worth it.

And just a note, today you have games on the XBOX where you can't play online without gold, people got that one. So i doubt they wouldn't be able to tell people clearly enough that this game requires always on like Diablo 3 did?

 

[kagemaru]

Honestly, in the last 14 years of broadband service I've had maybe 5 - 10 total days of downtime because of serious weather incidents or ISP problems. Do many people experience frequent loss of access? If you look at the explosion of tablets in North America, and other countries, that tells you how many people have wifi at home. A LOT. My only worry is how sensitive their online requirement would be to small hiccups in service because of ISP or wifi connectivity. The people who are complaining that they have "offline" consoles in their house most likely have wifi in their home that they could connect to. Since they were going to use it "offline" anyway, there is little reason for them to be picky about the quality of the wifi connection. Always online is probably there to kill piracy as much or more than any other justification. Piracy using offline consoles was a lot more common on the 360 than PS3.

Edit: I guess what I don't understand is the "outrage" some people are experiencing. If you live in a place where you have spotty Internet, don't buy one. It's as simple as that. Why be upset about something you don't own, or plan on owning, especially when you don't even know what that product is or does yet?

I've had broadband since 2000 and for the most part it's been solid, with most of my issues surfacing since I had to change cities for my job. In the two apartment complexes I've lived in so far here, both have had exclusive contracts with specific providers. This means I don't have a choice to shop around for the most stable or fastest connections. This hasn't been much of a problem lately but I did run into a series of issues when I first moved to my last apartment with horrible packet loss and random disconnects. Due to an error on the cable provider's side, this issue took roughly 3 weeks before the correct tech came to my apartment to install brand new lines. Even with my new apartment, I ran into scheduling issues with the provider and was without internet for ~3 weeks.

My big issue is that I should be able to use and enjoy the hardware and games I purchase with or without an internet connection. Problems occur that are beyond our control and I have a hard time agreeing that it's a good thing that I would be restricted from using a device I own because the internet was down.

I don't think "don't buy it" is a good mentality if my internet is having issues. I had every intent and was very interested in owning all 3 next gen consoles, plus a PC, since I know all 3 companies will provide software that I'll be interested in playing. However I don't think I can look the other way or support this type of anti-consumer control.

Some of these posts are truly fascinating. Is internet really that primitive and unreliable where y'all live? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this given that I've had always on broadband internet since 1996 in the USA where internet is supposedly more primitive compared to other parts of the world. Yet here we are in 2013 and apparently no one except me seems to have a reliable internet connection. I swear I thought it was just third world places that were still stuck in that predicament, but yikes I guess not. Learn something new everyday.

It's more of a matter of principle, not the lack of a broadband connection. It's bullshit that a company will dictate what I can and cannot play and when after I put down my hard earned money to buy said product.

 

[3dilettante]

If you make an "always only online" console knowing full well the reality of the internet that users all across the world face then actually it kind of is your fault. You know that users will run into these issues just so you can serve as many adverts as possible.

On a slightly different note, this is a hell of a way to wipe out all of people's game collections every few years. Every game purchase is a rental if this comes to pass.

The latter point is at the core of the EULAs and copyright messaging by the software industry. They already say you don't own your game library. Your fun and entertainment are licensed, and your enjoyment happens at their pleasure.
Always online merely cements their position, because literally nothing you do can happen without their blessing. Try naming a Diablo 3 character "Dickmaster" or a SimCity "Cockolickolopolis", or not say the right things on the EA forums, to see how much freedom you're supposed to have.

What greater threat to the revenue stream is there, than things that cause players to choose to not spend their money? One example of this choice is piracy. Another, is all those used games the publisher can't make you pay for again. Another is the all those fun old games they wish you could be forced to throw away. Heck, see what they do to sites that don't give glowing reviews or truthful previews. Imagine if the consumer was informed before you could get them on the presale list.

There's a wide ethical range spanned by consumer choices such as these, but I think the common factor they're trying to remove is pretty clear.

 

[Proelite]

Always online is a feature that developers can rely on being there, something they cannot do with a current console, or even PC. Like the hard drive in the PS3, or analog triggers on the controller. Requiring always-online is telling the developer: "Don't be afraid to incorporate features that rely on an internet connection, we will guarantee it is there". Things like a RTS game that uses google maps as it's terrain engine, or persistent online worlds, or integrating an ARG into the gameplay.

The problem is that Durango might flop out the gate and those games would never be made. The consumers have choice, and I hope that Sony wins decisively next generation.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

The "if you don't like it, don't buy it" suggestion is imo very ignorant. It's like if you don't like a law in your country, move out. Simple as that... Yeah really simple... How about we like most aspects of it and would like to buy it, but we'd like some things changed in it? Is that ok?

I don't often take my home console to our summer cottage, but when I do I prefer it to be usable.

 

[bkilian]

Online requirement as a benefit towards gameplay could always be done on a title by title basis though, and clearly marked as such on the game case or description in the store.

Until the rumors are cleared up as to why exactly this 3 min interval check is needed it's a free for all of speculation and backlash.

Sure, then you wind up with the current xbox 360 situation, where by making your game online-only, you immediately lock yourself out of half of the console owners. How many online-only games have been released for the XBox 360? How many games have taken advantage of the huge resources the internet has to offer to enhance gameplay?

 

[Proelite]

Sure, then you wind up with the current xbox 360 situation, where by making your game online-only, you immediately lock yourself out of half of the console owners. How many online-only games have been released for the XBox 360? How many games have taken advantage of the huge resources the internet has to offer to enhance gameplay?

That applies to next generation as well since there is a PS4. Considering 100% of the people who have no internet connection / shoddy connection will have a PS4 instead of a Xbox, that's a big percentage.

Outside of EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Microsoft and a few big publishers, off-line capable games won't be going away anytime soon.

I feel like Microsoft thinks their next Xbox is a GUARANTEED seller, and thus games will be GUARANTEED to be always online across the board.

 

[ERP]

The problem is that Durango might flop out the gate and those games would never be made. The consumers have choice.

Absolutely, and if the rumors are accurate then MS have taken a chance that consumers will not react that way.
As long as the restriction is clearly communicated I don't have an issue with it ethically.
In my case it wouldn't stop me purchasing.
But I'll buy both Durango and PS4 and probably more than 1 of at least one of those.

 

[Proelite]

Absolutely, and if the rumors are accurate then MS have taken a chance that consumers will not react that way.
As long as the restriction is clearly communicated I don't have an issue with it ethically.
In my case it wouldn't stop me purchasing.But I'll buy both Durango and PS4 and probably more than 1 of at least one of those.

Me neither, I'll buy it knowing that it'll be a giant paperweight in a few years.

True gaming fans should hope that Durango flops and PS4 becomes a massive run away success on the back of AAA hardcore games.

A few years later we might get a hardcore gaming focused console from Microsoft made by an IEB that has been "streamlined" and "downsized".

Who am I kidding. MS isn't in this business for the hardcore gaming dollar anyways.

 

[3dilettante]

Sure, then you wind up with the current xbox 360 situation, where by making your game online-only, you immediately lock yourself out of half of the console owners.

If the vision put forward for your online-only game was universally compelling, why would half the addressable market have already chosen to be offline?

 

[Bagel seed]

Sure, then you wind up with the current xbox 360 situation, where by making your game online-only, you immediately lock yourself out of half of the console owners. How many online-only games have been released for the XBox 360? How many games have taken advantage of the huge resources the internet has to offer to enhance gameplay?

I think it'd perform about as well in sales as it would on an online only box. People can be trained pretty easily to recognize something like online only vs otherwise, given enough titles coming out that would do it. Like -tkf- and others have pointed out it wouldn't be all that different to MMO's or games like Diablo 3, or many other examples. Say AssCreed 6 is announced online only, basically an MMO version and it could be marketed as such.

I wonder what the split is for CoD players who touch online vs who don't. For all intents and purposes I would consider it an online only game...

As for huge resources improving gameplay I'm anticipating that too in the future, ala Gaikai or whatever serving up full games beyond what any set top box could be capable of rendering. That's the prime and only truly convincing case, imo.

It's so you know your place, and know the length of your leash.

Seems to be the jist of it. As a method for DRM, it's not really proven to be necessary (see PS3, latest 360 revisions). But being trained to always be online, and perhaps to entice the less connected Xbox platform fans to get online will drive more digital or ad dollars, or so they think.

 

[BoardBonobo]

An always online device just isn't an option where I live. We get between 1.6 and 2.4Mb synced (so actual bandwidth is much lower) rate on a good day and it can disappear for hours on end. I've mitigated the biggest bugbear which was lack of bandwidth to contact our ISPs DNS servers by using a QNAP 412 NAS as a caching DNS server.

But to never be sure when I could or couldn't play a game would just not be worth paying money for. And there are quite a large number of people living around me in the same situation and the majority of them are hard core gamers. And so far the PS4 is becoming the meme of choice.

 

[Billy Idol]

Are we really certain that Sony does not plan the same? What if there is pressure vom third parties and big publishers?

 

[dobwal]

Who cares? Do you have a vested interest in whether Microsoft is selling consoles to people who do not have Internet service?

If you don't like it, you buy something else. If you feel the benefits outweigh the limitations, then buy it. There's so much anger directed towards a product that's unannounced, not for sale and you do not have to buy.

This whole thread can be summed up as, "If you don't like it, don't buy it. Microsoft seems perfectly confident that they can sell it to someone else."

Little emotional aren't you?

A previous post that you seem to have missed.

Me personally I couldn't care less since I am a multiple console user. It has its perk like no need for Xbox Live. I'll just add "no need to worry about loss of internet connection" to my perk list and keep it moving.

I try to discuss strictly from a non personal point of view, so telling "If you don't like it, don't buy it." means very little especially since I plan on purchasing multiple console, 12 CUs and "always required" be damned (meaning its not enough to dissuade me). I try to look at things from a very general consumer point of view. My vested interest in MS is the same vested interest I have in Sony and Nintendo. The healthy existence of platform providers and the game market in general so that I may game to my hearts content until I pass this earth.

I don't think its the down time in and of itself is a problem. Tons of people who use Netflix, Facebook or a hundreds of online only services without regard to the possible loss of the internet. But consoles are different as I am pretty sure most gamers know that consoles have no functional reason not to operate when the internet is unavailable.

And the fact that people are believing that this features is tied to DRM and adverts doesn't help either.

 

[dobwal]

Are we really certain that Sony does not plan the same? What if there is pressure vom third parties and big publishers?

If MS succeeds, Sony will quickly follow.