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

[3dilettante]

I don't disagree, but that's a subject for the Ethics of Technology board. Within the scope of the Console fora, the moral compass is effectively consumers want everything free and businesses want as much money as they can get, and 'fairness' doesn't much enter into it. So we can complain about our personal objections, sure, but have to appreciate that the deciding factor won't ever be what anyone feels about, and only ever how customers respond. If customers are unhappy and it leads to dropped sales - bad call. If customers are unhappy but it leads to increased revenue - woohoo, quids in!

Again, I would caution that this holds if you tick off a few thousand here or there.
Scale it up to enough people and across enough jurisdictions, and the rules change.
Let one of the console makers build a service, advertise it internationally, and use it as a hub to the living room with financial and communications links, then think it can shrug off providing meaningful service like tens of millions of paying service customers are as important as last year's Madden. I'm interested in seeing what happens.

 

[Davros]

Has it actually happened yet, is there a game that requires online activation but cannot be activated ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Has it actually happened yet, is there a game that requires online activation but cannot be activated ?

Offline games, I don't know. I think the concept is too new. Although that's an easy fix. Take a game that needs online activation and have it discontinued 7 years after release, as happens. Just provide a download unlock, could be baked with the user details, and give that away enabling owners to activate their copy themselves on any machine.

 

[3dilettante]

Just authenticating the initial installation or startup is a lower level of activity compared to obligatory-online software.
The endgame to this hasn't come about for any high-profile games I've come across.
I think there could be certain games on THQ's older catalogue prior to their shift to Steam or GFW DRM whose digital variants might have fallen through the cracks after bankruptcy, but I haven't followed that story closely enough to know how that was handled.

The more common events right now are multiplayer servers being treated as some kind of value-added service or game pass add-on by game companies, which they will take money for right up to the day they kill the service. That happens more routinely, but in theory should leave the game client usable offline. Some games have been criticized for how pervasively the server hooks are in the game, such that the offline component's playability is hit by code timing out on server checks.

An obligatory-online feature would extend the scenario to include even the offline component.

edit:
That doesn't mean there aren't examples of DRM authentication servers being taken down for other types of media, so this isn't unprecedented.

 

[Gubbi]

As I read about these possible measures like always on for validation and the limiting used games, I worry that we are about to witness an era in gaming where the industry looks straight at the mistakes the music industry made before it grew up and says "Yeah lets do that!!! "

You mean before they converted into always-on streaming services ?

Cheers

 

[function]

Funnily enough I bought some DRM free, none streaming, permanent music just the other night. So not all music is streaming only with a built in kill switch.

And the streaming music services I've seen don't require you to buy an expensive hifi that can only stream music and only from one provider, and where you have to pay $20 per album with only an indefinite limited lease on the hifi and album.

If MS want to offer me ad funded AAA games that run latency unimpared in a browser on every system I own then maybe I'd consider it though.

 

[kagemaru]

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
[/INDENT]

There is a difference between the two:

A console that features always online would have a low power or standby mode. In this state the system could be powered down but still remain connected to the network to send and receive data. This way games and the OS could be updated regardless if the system is powered on or not.

A system with required online would have the same features as described above but with one caveat, the system requires an internet connection to run games or apps.

So both systems could have the same features but only one turns into a ~$400 dust collector when not connected. There's a big difference between the two IMO.

 

[Gubbi]

And the streaming music services I've seen don't require you to buy an expensive hifi that can only stream music and only from one provider, and where you have to pay $20 per album with only an indefinite limited lease on the hifi and album.

If MS want to offer me ad funded AAA games that run latency unimpared in a browser on every system I own then maybe I'd consider it though.

Strawman argument and off topic, we're discussing the implications of always-on, not the payment structure of the products peddled. But for argument's sake, always-on allows subscription based products (ie. play all the games you want for a fixed fee).

Cheers

 

[Cyan]

The creative director kind of apologized for his words:

Major Nelson also apologized and replied over the comments of MS's creative director.

Neogaf detectives found out he was sweet_billy in the forums and that he worked for Sony years ago and hated Halo:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=534951

Apparently, he has been fired.

Update: 1:40pm

Sources are telling 4Player that Adam Orth is no longer working for Microsoft. Currently tracking this down further...

...we've confirmed this with one reliable source but not two, and Orth's linkedin has currently shown no movement.

 

[Cyan]

Probably because people have an Xbox 360 and they'd like to continue playing the game franchises they enjoy. I don't mind a console that tries to be always online, but I don't like the principle of requiring it.

The consumers have choice, and I hope that Sony wins decisively next generation.

Yeah, that's it for me. It's all about choice.

I had never ever expected this to happen --if true.

I am fine with developers programming "online only" games or people who defend those games, cause you have a choice whether to buy those games or not. It's a software thing, so it's ok!!

But the machine itself? WTH???!!!! You are forcing not only consumers but also developers to the online only mode. There is no freedom for them.

 

[Cyan]

Always online means consoles function when the party on the other end of the line, and all intermediary connectors, feels like it.
They probably wouldn't, but could, decide on 980 launch day to put an expiration date on the 720.
(edit: if my barely awake math didn't utterly fail me, it would be 1080 launch day)

It's called dependency....

I lived a situation of dependency in the past once in my life when I was unemployed and my family was helping me, and let me tell you, it wasn't fun.

Here where I live there are many intermediary connectors, as you would say.

One of them is the weather itself, then there is the ISP, the router -5 fried routers in 2 years here (electricity was working fine, because the routers fried during storms and the electric overload entered the router via the phone cable), normally replaced in less than a day, except one, which took a whole week-, xbox live...

External factors: moving, migrating your ISP company, distance to the router, thick walls...

My ISP doesn't allow for a connection speed loss superior to 20% of the promised bandwidth or the bandwidth you pay for. I have a 6MB connection but it never achieves that speed, although at least my ISP keep their promises and also my connection is relatively stable.

I am with Tottentranz and some others... There are many countries -like 100+- in the world with a limited internet connectivity, limited monthly bandwidth, etc etc, the X720 could never be popular there, and MS wouldn't want that (I guess).

Finally, I'd like to share this funny gif:

http://i.minus.com/ibwI1puhNCjqAg.gif

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wow, all this hand wringing over potential online requirement.

I guess I just don't mind as I've been playing games that require an online connection ever since 1989. Yes, playing games that require an online connection before broadband was available to consumers. No connection, no game.

Using a dial up modem. My god, I wonder how some people actually survive now days.

Regards,
SB

 

[3dilettante]

Unless you entered that post via a 36.6K connection, I feel your post might undermine your argument.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Unless you entered that post via a 36.6K connection, I feel your post might undermine your argument.

Pffft. I was dial-up modem only until 1998. Then I had a broadband connection from 1998-2002. Then I went dial-up modem only from end of 2002-2005 because I lived out in the country during that time and there was no viable broadband solution out there (satellite doesn't cut it). And I've had broadband ever since.

At no period during that time since 1989 have I stopped playing games that require an online connection in order to play them.

It didn't bother me back in 1989 and it certainly doesn't bother me now. And I only had one phone line back in 1989, which meant I couldn't stay connected. Not to mention the per minute charges for some of the online resources. And the potential toll fees or long distance fees for some of the multi-user BBSes.

[edit] Oh I see, the way I structured that second paragraph some might think I was current ON a dial up modem.

Regards,
SB

 

[3dilettante]

I'm not sure why I need to debate your anecdotal experience or possible levels of masochism when it comes to a method of connectivity today's newest users would misidentify as a Skrillex single.
It's a dark past I believe we can all move beyond.

Were those the only games you played? Did your PC stop working when the carrier was lost?

I had to at least occasionally rely on dial-up connectivity until the early 2000s, and even to this day part of my work on some occasions deals with systems buried at the other end of an insipid modem connection.
I still deal with dialup, in the modern day USA, for ostensibly professional organizations.

I don't think much of the prospect of debasing the functionality of my dwindling free time in any direction trending towards that.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No, the experience wasn't always pleasant when I was on dial-up during the 2000's. But it was mostly fine for anything that didn't involve raids in an MMO. I could even get used to the 250 ms ping in multiplayer FPS as long as it remained constant (no rain, wind or storms out).

The point is that my connectivity was far from always online and despite going for months on end ONLY playing online only games, it didn't bother me.

In other words, my life doesn't revolve around games. It's just one of various recreational activities. If it is unavailable for whatever reason, then I just do a different activity. I've had more power outages (5) in the past 8 years of broadband than I have internet outages (1). Of course, I understand that people have less reliable internet providers than I. I have various friends with Cox Cable, Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable (interesting most are cable) internet providers who have had weekly or monthly service interruptions. In such a case it would be a minor annoyance. I'd just take that time to go do something else personally. It's not like the connection is going to be out for a week. Generally for them its out for at most a couple of hours.

When I go traveling I don't generally play my PC games on the plane. I typically brought along a device that was more conducive to gaming on the go (most recently a launch PSP), but generally tend to do most of my reading while travelling.

I don't know. I guess just due to my past experience with at times going for months sometimes years on end playing online only games (monthly fees tend to be cheaper than 1-2 games a month), that I just don't see it the way some on the forums do.

Regards,
SB

 

[Cyan]

No, the experience wasn't always pleasant when I was on dial-up during the 2000's. But it was mostly fine for anything that didn't involve raids in an MMO. I could even get used to the 250 ms ping in multiplayer FPS as long as it remained constant (no rain, wind or storms out).

The point is that my connectivity was far from always online and despite going for months on end ONLY playing online only games, it didn't bother me.

In other words, my life doesn't revolve around games. It's just one of various recreational activities. If it is unavailable for whatever reason, then I just do a different activity. I've had more power outages (5) in the past 8 years of broadband than I have internet outages (1). Of course, I understand that people have less reliable internet providers than I. I have various friends with Cox Cable, Comcast Cable, Time Warner Cable (interesting most are cable) internet providers who have had weekly or monthly service interruptions. In such a case it would be a minor annoyance. I'd just take that time to go do something else personally. It's not like the connection is going to be out for a week. Generally for them its out for at most a couple of hours.

When I go traveling I don't generally play my PC games on the plane. I typically brought along a device that was more conducive to gaming on the go (most recently a launch PSP), but generally tend to do most of my reading while travelling.

I don't know. I guess just due to my past experience with at times going for months sometimes years on end playing online only games (monthly fees tend to be cheaper than 1-2 games a month), that I just don't see it the way some on the forums do.

Regards,
SB

Well, the point is that you are talking about software, not hardware.

If it wasn't for other factors like climate I can tell you that while I didn't check the ISP logs, of course, my sister's boyfriend -who lives relatively nearby and has the same ISP as me- internet has been up for the last 4-5 years without a hick, so reliability is not much of a problem in some places nowadays, but I doubt that everyone will have such a reliable ISP and cable/line.

Besides that, always-on is anti-green, and it might go against some regulations here in Europe.

Also anyone who doesn't have access to unlimited data internet access will probably give the new xbox the finger and buy the PS4.

Devices on Stand-by are closer to being green than a device that is always on. I would rather prefer the device turn on to download some updates or whatever, and then shut back down into stand-by than be on the darn whole time for no apparent reason.

I certainly don't want the old circle of death to become the black spot where my own house once was just because of some cheap penny pinching Microsoft's design flaw that alas we've all become accustomed to expecting.

 

[Cyan]

Funnily enough I bought some DRM free, none streaming, permanent music just the other night. So not all music is streaming only with a built in kill switch.

And the streaming music services I've seen don't require you to buy an expensive hifi that can only stream music and only from one provider, and where you have to pay $20 per album with only an indefinite limited lease on the hifi and album.

If MS want to offer me ad funded AAA games that run latency unimpared in a browser on every system I own then maybe I'd consider it though.

That and to be totally and perfectly honest... an always on video game console would be ripping people off in the long run, I am sure.

Say you wanted to play a game you bought eight years ago. Nope cannot play it... because Xbox Live support for that system is gone.

You basically wasted your money buying that game years ago.

 

[-tkf-]

Has it actually happened yet, is there a game that requires online activation but cannot be activated ?

The first game i encountered was Quake 3 afaik that still works. But there are examples with other software that stopped working because the activation servers were shutdown.

And there are plenty examples of MMO games simply dying when the servers are shut down, but that is of course complete different since there is no game without the online part. But it's still be a full priced game that cannot be played anymore

 

[bkilian]

Also anyone who doesn't have access to unlimited data internet access will probably give the new xbox the finger and buy the PS4.

Aah, so you'd rather buy the console that will background download multi-gigabyte games just in case you might want to buy one of them? The PS4 is going to be always-online too you know. They specifically mentioned it in the presentation.