*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
Being the PC there's at least the chance that some dev/pubs could do the right thing and offer drm removal. Or you could possibly buy DRM free versions again on GoG, or perhaps download cracks to gain perfectly ethical access to games you've already paid for.
With the strongly rumoured MS system at some point in the future MS will hit a kill switch and wipe out your entire collection.
Only games that I don't really like are disposable and I keep the rest. My top five console games pre-date this generation and I can still play them all on systems that I still own and I don't have to worry about theft-by-EULA. I'm not going to pay "purchase" level prices for games and systems when I only actually have a fairly short term lease on the stuff.
Indeed, the rumour is being taken out off whatever context it'll feature in (if always online happens). A great deal of guesswork in this thread. But if MS release a software platform that'll be always compatible with all future MS OSes, then they won't be taking away your access. They'll have just shifted model to a Netflix model. Or PSN movies. I can buy a movie off PSN (SEN) for full price and it's a download only. One day it probably won't be available. Sony already did that with their music and anyone who sunk money on Connect lost all their download music (I'd quite like what little I bought back, now I think about it). We've no idea on pricing for these games either. At the end of the day, as long as consumers are suitably informed, they are free to choose. And if the whole industry forces DRM on people, they'll either have to suck it up or stop playing games. That's how life works. You're given typically less than perfect options and pick whichever one. Personally I can't say I'm enthusiastic at the idea and feel it has limits, but also my PC and PS3 are always online, even if I rarely log into PSN. The times my internet have been down are mostly due to router issues. Although I do dislike having to log onto PSN to use the PS3's YouTube app. I wouldn't notice if PS3 was or wasn't online, truth be told (except when it's online I'm forever prompted to update FW and PSN store and patch games!).
I'm not in the industry, but I feel confident in replying with the industry's POV - they'll look at the numbers, and if always-on makes more money than not, they'll support it. 
When it comes to targeting prior to having numbers to make predictions with, both PS and XB are strong enough players that they'll both be fully supported at launch. So it's basically "at this point we don't care. We'll support both. If one doesn't make enough money because people aren't buying, we'll stop supporting it."
It'd be different if a new brand was always on, like Ouya. Then as a developer you'd have to try to predict whether users will be turned away by the requirement, or attracted to its advantages. But as I say, XB is a known quantity. It'll sell 10 million off the bat without worries, so release on it, cash in on early adopters, and go from there.
When it comes to targeting prior to having numbers to make predictions with, both PS and XB are strong enough players that they'll both be fully supported at launch. So it's basically "at this point we don't care. We'll support both. If one doesn't make enough money because people aren't buying, we'll stop supporting it."It'd be different if a new brand was always on, like Ouya. Then as a developer you'd have to try to predict whether users will be turned away by the requirement, or attracted to its advantages. But as I say, XB is a known quantity. It'll sell 10 million off the bat without worries, so release on it, cash in on early adopters, and go from there.
I'm not in the industry, but I feel confident in replying with the industry's POV - they'll look at the numbers, and if always-on makes more money than not, they'll support it.
It'd be different if a new brand was always on, like Ouya. Then as a developer you'd have to try to predict whether users will be turned away by the requirement, or attracted to its advantages. But as I say, XB is a known quantity. It'll sell 10 million off the bat without worries, so release on it, cash in on early adopters, and go from there.
Yep pretty much what I thought,but what I'm wondering is how that "support" will differ.
I mean they are obviously going to support both system if games sell well on both but how might that support differ depending on the numbers?
You bring up a rather good point. However, I do wonder - how do you know that your internet hasn't been out more than you can count on one hand in the past 5 years?
Answer: You don't. What you ment to say is "in the past 5 years, I've always been able to use my internet connection when I wanted to, with the exception of give or take 5 times".
You're not always home and quite likely, you haven't relied on a working internet connection 24/7. Chances are, you won't either on a new *online-always next gen Xbox*, but the likelyhood of you noticing internet drops is a lot more apparent when you rely on it more.
I believe this wasn't actually the case so far, because your Xbox360 isn't relient on the internet in the same way the next Xbox will supposedly be. Big difference.
In other words, you only get to realise how faulty your internet connection (meaning between your Xbox and the Xbox Live server) can be, if you are actually reliant on it.
Surfing the internet, occasional online gaming doesn't tell you that, really. When you surfing the internet, you don't realise it because you are accessing likely hundreds of different servers all over the world. If a link doesn't work on Google, you are most likely to shrug it off and try another one. As long as your ISP and Emails etc work, you wouldn't really notice which servers are not online due to some technical problem. As soon as your ISP or the provider hosting your website or emails have an issue - then you notice, because you are reliant on those services. It's the same situation on the next Xbox - if Microsoft makes that connection between your box and their server mandatory, you become reliant on it and you will tend to notice it more. And I'll bet you anything, if you won't be able to even play offline games when those blackouts do happen, you will 1.) notice them 2.) they will be more than 5 times within 5 years.
Imagine not being able to watch a DVD from your dvd player because the internet doesn't work. Or not use your smartphone (at all) because your network provider is offline. That's the raise of concern here, especially if the benefit of being online to play is merely for DRM reasons.
What are the chances of that being anything other than a rare occurrence? The frustration of not being able to play because your internet is down is not going to be any different than the frustration you have when the controller dies, the console dies, the TV dies, the power goes out, etc. I've already experienced all of those this gen, and worse. I can add the frustration of PSN being down, and worse yet, the frustration of trying to join online games only to have to patch and reboot frozen consoles and the like.
The only legitimate concern I see is the loss of access to games you 'own' once the validation servers are discontinued.
That Tom Warren, who is he by the way? His sentence is a finely crafted piece of logical failure...
The system is always connected but games are not? You can play games while the system is off... nice.
I mean, having the system authentication relying on online is one thing, games relying on servers to run part of the game (ala diablo3) is another (though in diablo 3 you have both authentication and the servers doing their thing). Now that guy's sentence I don't get why it ends up here, it is a logical failure... should not get any attention outside of sarcastic comments
I'm always connected on various online services (such as, but not limited to, IRC) so I know exactly when my internet is down. I've been impacted all of 6 times over the past 8 years. Of those 6 times, 5 times were due to area-wide power outages. The remaining 1 times was when someone crashed into or wrecked or cut some equipment between my house and the head-end. It lasted all of 1 day.
Over those same 8 years, there was only 2 times that I had issues with connecting to XBox live. The longest issue lasted for 4 hours.
Exactly this. No matter how stable my internet has been, It would still be aggravating those few times it does go down. That's a frustration I wouldn't have to put up with on another console or PC.
That Tom Warren, who is he by the way? His sentence is a finely crafted piece of logical failure...
The system is always connected but games are not? You can play games while the system is off... nice.
I mean, having the system authentication relying on online is one thing, games relying on servers to run part of the game (ala diablo3) is another (though in diablo 3 you have both authentication and the servers doing their thing). Now that guy's sentence I don't get why it ends up here, it is a logical failure... should not get any attention outside of sarcastic comments
His tweet makes sense and is what I hope will happen. There's a difference between a system being always online and one that makes online a requirement.
We're not necessarely talking about "if the internet is down". The internet can mean a lot of things. If you browse your net, your pc is accessing DNS servers and the servers of the websites you are accessing. Typically, if you open a general news site, you are accessing multiple servers in different regions/countries concurrently.
Most people will fail to realize their internet is down, unless the router/modem breaks or all the DNS server of your local provider goes offline. Unless this happens, the internet will work for 99% of sites you access. Does that constitute as being "offline"? Not in your view.
Not that it matters, as we're not talking about the internet in general. We are explicitly talking about the link between your next-gen Xbox and the Xbox Live server. My point is, most people are yet to find out how often such a connection is offline when it becomes a mandatory one.
BTW: My phone is always online and connected to online services too. Timeout exception handling in most software will prevent me from realizing how often I am really "offline". Just because no message pops up, doesn't mean you are always connected.
Just for the record, I work in a company offering some of the services you are likely talking about and our clients expect "always available". I am well aware what it means if we aren't to our client(s) - and when we aren't - it's seldom our server that is the root of the problem.
Shifty said:
I guess we'll all find out. My general point is, the average consumer (and that includes just about anyone who doesn't work for a company and actually has an emergency phone go off when a service goes offline) doesn't know how often a service is actually online - because today, we are not really reliant on "always being online" every second. Most services we connect to, work when we use it and on demand. When it doesn't work, it's usually not a big deal, given we can still use our products offline in some way.
The picture changes dramatically if our offline content doesn't work anymore either. Think about it. You can't watch dvds you physically own, your phone refuses to open an app with offline content or in this case, your Xbox refuses to play your offline game because it can't access some server.
There are hundreds of reasons why your internet connection (thus the connection between your xbox and the live-server) may not be working. Maintenance, DNS issues, your ISP having a problem, your router being overloaded etc.
Most people are more "offline" to their services then they realize it. Why? Because most software we use, we use it on demand. If we're not using it in that instance, we probably wouldn't even realize that we weren't able to access it in that moment because no device will have an alarm go off if it can't access something. And if we do realize it - then, usually, we shrug it off in someway (usually depends how important the service is, mind you) because we can still access the offline data because it's cached locally and try again later etc. If every program you have on your computer, your laptop, heck, if every consumer electronic device outthere becomes reliant on reaching some server and refuses to work at all if it can't, I bet people would become a lot more aware how shakey some connections tend to be.
What have to be remembered here is the scale that a probem will have.
If Live is down today it be anything from a router and one person to the whole world that can't login. In any case they can still play "something". And when live gets online there of course is a rush on the servers as people sign in, but it's still "staggered" since not everyoe will be sitting and waiting to be able to actually play.
With always on you would have 70.000.000 potential angry people (hello support lines, are you there) websites forums etc being flooded when there is a problem. And when the gates open "everyone" will be trying to signin, hello servers, are you fresh? So i bet that with a always on scheme there will and has to be some kind of offline mode for some time.
With wow in it's hey days i saw this to often, forums and websites would die, login servers would crumple and people would be immensely annoyed. Microsoft or Sony trying to this on a even bigger scale should be interesting. If someone can manage this i think it's Microsoft but the first time the whole world is offline and their console is dead in the water, then there will be hell to pay
But as you said, the greatest concern is that we go from owning games to having a simple license.
Another hack/outage similar to the PSN one would would be catastrophic, maybe not lethal but still not harmless either.
Last edited by a moderator:
When the internet is down, i stop playing BF3 and start playing some kinect games on Xbox (kinect sports, mainly).
If the next xbox need always on internet?
When the internet is down, it will be like when Electricity goe down.
i wont be able to play BF4, i wont be able to play Kinect Sports 3, im just going to basement to look for old comic books to read :/
or i just go out to somewhere.
if that happend often enough, i will forgot to complete the game.
For people in 3rd world country, stable internet is expensive. they need to fork 70 dollar/month for 1Mbps stable internet (maybe go down every few weeks). Cheaper internet available from CDMA and 3.5G networks. Both of them are very unstable.
If the next xbox require always on, would not it be problematic for them to expand the market beyond 1st world countries?
If the next xbox need always on internet?
When the internet is down, it will be like when Electricity goe down.
i wont be able to play BF4, i wont be able to play Kinect Sports 3, im just going to basement to look for old comic books to read :/
or i just go out to somewhere.
if that happend often enough, i will forgot to complete the game.
For people in 3rd world country, stable internet is expensive. they need to fork 70 dollar/month for 1Mbps stable internet (maybe go down every few weeks). Cheaper internet available from CDMA and 3.5G networks. Both of them are very unstable.
If the next xbox require always on, would not it be problematic for them to expand the market beyond 1st world countries?
As I get it, the always on - always online applies to system. The impact on the games in indirect.
It is no different than what happens for most people at work, you can't connect (turn on) to your PC without an authentication on AD.
Administrators can log locally on the system, I guess that is what hackers are to investigated, how to connect to the device as an admin. It seems MSFT is to give hackers quiet some intensive to go all out on the system. They better have awesome security measures imho.
EDIT
It doesn't make business sense for MSFT to require editors to make extra investments on a game basis to authenticate users, neither editors are to have servers that like in Diablo 3 run part of the game (even minimal) when it is not necessary, it is an extra cost "for free".
Some editors may use to do so if they think the games benefit from it (and so they swallow the extra cost).
It is MSFT that will "deal" with the whole affair with no extra costs for editors (so a win for them on top of possible impact on second hand games), MSFT will authenticate the system, a user account, and a list of authorized softwares every time the system is turned on, ensuring that there is no piracy on the platform (not a given as I think that if MSFT really goes for those policies the hackers will enter a race to break the system security and find a way to log on "locally".
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but I see no difference between those two proposals outside of playing with words where is the difference?
The wording doesn't make sense, neither the post, as you say it is wishful thinking but poorly worded (/nonsensical).
translate into online not necessary to play game
Translate into if the system is on it has to be connected.
=> what he states is nothing less that you can play games when the system is off, that the only logical option... nonsensical one because the premise are nonsensical either.
Sorry it really doesn't make any sense.
----------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between a system that would check user rights on given pieces of software periodically (within a period of time of significant length) and one that check pretty much constantly (like every 3 minutes ~all the the time), indeed but that is not what leaks or sentences like "deal with it" imply.
EDIT
I checked the guy reference and let say it is quiet scary /baffling that a guy in his position can type that kind of crap without noticing / did not come with a proper way to express what he wanted to say (which I guess is not the nonsense he wrote).
The guy works in the Press he should have standard and avoid nonsense
Last edited by a moderator: