I wish it were clear to the Internet that "always online" and "requires online" are two separate things. The former is what everyone wants (direct remote system management), the latter is what the Internet is really howling about (likely online DRM protection schemes).
*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
I wish it were clear to the Internet that "always online" and "requires online" are two separate things. The former is what everyone wants (direct remote system management), the latter is what the Internet is really howling about (likely online DRM protection schemes).
So you know for a fact that this is mandatory with no way to switch it off? Chances are it will be optin instead of optout since it's a burden on servers if 70 million people downloads all the time.
Of course it is, just like the PS3 and XBOX is, but there is a world of difference between always on and having to be always on no matter what if you want to play. Without knowing the inner workings of sony so i can only guess, but those 24 days without PSN taught them a lesson. If they had always on drm when that happened they would have had 24 days where millions of people couldn't use a simple CE device.
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether or not you personally have stable internet, I can't imagine taking the risk on a online required console. It's not just how many time Microsoft's servers might go down over the next 8 years, it's how many times your ISP might flake out, your modem might flake out, your router might flake out, your wifi neighborhood might be congested.
And what if you move and it takes a week to schedule an install at your new place? Why shouldn't you be able to play games while you wait for your net hook up? One summer my family couldn't afford to keep paying out internet bill. You know how I passed the time instead of browsing the net? I played through my backlog.
I just can't imagine accepting a system where access to the hardware I paid for, and the games I paid for is so fucking tenuous that they can be revoked at the drop of a hat, either by an act of god or my own financial or geographic situation. Not when there's another (more powerful, indie friendlier, with feature parity) option sitting on the shelf right next to it.
And what if you move and it takes a week to schedule an install at your new place? Why shouldn't you be able to play games while you wait for your net hook up? One summer my family couldn't afford to keep paying out internet bill. You know how I passed the time instead of browsing the net? I played through my backlog.
I just can't imagine accepting a system where access to the hardware I paid for, and the games I paid for is so fucking tenuous that they can be revoked at the drop of a hat, either by an act of god or my own financial or geographic situation. Not when there's another (more powerful, indie friendlier, with feature parity) option sitting on the shelf right next to it.
Completely wrong thought process. The money is not wasted as long as you play the game. You get the enjoyment from the game you paid for. If you buy a game and then wait 8 years and there's no way to play it, then you've wasted your money. If you buy a game and enjoy it and then 8 years later can't play it, you have less value from your purchase than a game that lasts forever, but it's far from being a waste of money. Can I put a 10 yo game in my PS3 and play it? Nope. Were all those PS2 games therefore a waste of money? Nope!
And really do you think these countries are the next-gen consoles main/target market?
No, the next-gen main/target market is rich and technologically advanced counties where customers can afford stable internet and HD gaming.
Also even in rich countries gaming has become too much for many: in the US, the richest country on the planet, in fact hardware and software sales are down year by year and Sony & MS can't afford 5-10 more years in this situation.
If "always connected" will be useful for recovery then they will do it.
This decision will cost them something but they and us will get something in return as well: if the benefits will surpass the costs then the system would have worked.
If the console/gaming market on the other hand is not going to be profitable then Sony & MS will abandon it because, unlike Nintendo, their business is not only in consoles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely wrong thought process. The money is not wasted as long as you play the game. You get the enjoyment from the game you paid for. If you buy a game and then wait 8 years and there's no way to play it, then you've wasted your money. If you buy a game and enjoy it and then 8 years later can't play it, you have less value from your purchase than a game that lasts forever, but it's far from being a waste of money. Can I put a 10 yo game in my PS3 and play it? Nope. Were all those PS2 games therefore a waste of money? Nope!
Can i put a 28 year old CD in my CD player? I used Billie Jean as an example earlier, imagine music you buy just goes away. Or movies for that matter. Of course i got enjoyment while it lasted but i would be pretty pissed
I just find it hard to believe that there is a market for games that has a die date. Even if games are more like one night stands there is still plenty games that are worth playing years after their release date.
I was just listening to a bunch of old Beach Boys, Beatles and Buffalo Springfield 45s my Dad found from his childhood. So glad MS hasn't pulled the plug on turntables yet!
How is pointing out that the music industry's always on services don't require you to purchase expensive, provider locked hardware and still purchase full priced media, which the rumoured Durango setup does, a "strawman" argument? It's not a "strawman" argument because it's entirely relevant to comparisons between music streaming and the current and proposed hardware and media provider models. And that proposed provider model is exactly what this thread is about!
A pet peeve of mine is the growing misuse of "strawman" as a dismissive evade or a cry of "irrelevant!" rather than the genuine identification of a fallacy. Whether or not you care about the point at hand a lot of us do, and it's a real point.
And the payment structure - particularly with respect to costs and ownership is something that is very, very much something that is being discussed in this thread and has been since before this thread was spun off (note the "...stuff" on the end of the title!).
On the last point you made, I'd simply say I disagree and that "always online" isn't a requirement of all subscription based products, and that "play all the games you want for a fixed fee" does not it any way inherently rule out a device having an offline mode.
But what if the power went out? Or you couldn't hear the record player because of ... a vacuum cleaner ... or something.
I'd argue that music is different to games. Indeed, games strike me as more disposable than any other medium, as if once you've played it, it has little value being revisited. Heck, more than that most games bought are never even completed, so the requirement to revisit them many years later seems somewhat contrived. Of all the games I've played and owned over the years, the only ones I have interest in playing now are modern games and a few unequalled classics from PS2. I have before now played old games on PC, but if I couldn't I'd do something else with my time. Even remakes I think I'd like lack interest (and this goes for friends to). The Monkey Island games were incredible, yet I can't bring myself to play them again because I already know them. It's like they've been spent. This is very different to films and music. A B&W classic movie is still worth watching to many people. Music from our past still has value. But no-one is lamenting the lack of being able to play their Spectrum/C64 library on their current machines. So games seem to me more like a good meal - it's consumed and finished with and you need a new experience rather than repeat the old one.
So although I agree with your scenario in principle, in reality I don't think long-term interest in games has much value to almost all gamers and no-one will be shopping for a console with a view to buying games that'll still be playing 10 years+ later. Only a small subset of collectors and hardcore gamers will be bothered by that, or particular franchise fans.
I disagree with this to an incredible degree. Fun games will still be fun no matter how much time passes by.
Okay, what 10 year+ old games have you played in the past few years? You may be a very different gamer to me. There's only really one way to settle this - to the Bat Poll!
Not talking about anything specific,just the general approach of being more restrictive.
Instead of looking at piracy and opening up they took an adversarial approach.
Bagel seed
Veteran
His LinkedIn is gone now. He just up and vanished like a fart in the wind..
Might very well be in Gitmo now too
When you are talking about target markets you should consider actual fixed broadband penetration in Europe:
OECD data.
I will give you and example of my country, Poland. We have 38.5m citizens and only 5.6m fixed broadband subscribers. Based on that i dare to say that about 50 to 60% of polish citizens have access to good quality broadband. And we are 13th best in the world according to OECD data. Xbox live service is still a fairly new addition (it was started late 2010 in Poland), but the fact we have that service available demonstrates that MS is thinking seriously about polish market.
So considering all above i think that creating always online console is a very bad idea.
Also i dont see the benefits of being always online. I see benefits of having additional online only services. I felt the pain of D3 release and was very upset about the way Blizzard handled all the associated problems. Even thou i did not have the need to play offline. Also i dont want to licence my games and lose access to them whenever publisher decides to stop the support.
I recently played Homeworld (1999) and Homeworld 2 (2003). Just to give you an example.
Sure, we all revisit game occasionally, but is that a major intention when buying games and reason not to buy a game in future?
The issue here is buying a game and being unable to play it because an online switch is switched that disables it on the device it was made for. If that same game is made available to play via other means, it's still a loss of that intrinsic value of the game, but I doubt people will care. Sometimes we get a yearning to play something old but if we can't, c'est la vie. I for one haven't ever bought a game expecting to play it again in ten years even if I have sometimes gone back to a game (which is a rare event).
But in the situation you just described you're no longer "buying" the game. You are only renting it until such time as the manufacturer decides you no longer want to play it. Or they go out of business and shut down the verification servers.
I'm fine with this only if the system and game prices are greatly reduced.
If I'm renting the system and games I expect a rental pricing model or I will spend my money elsewhere.
@DeF
There are risk and there are benefits.
The risk for MS in this case is to loose customers.
The benefits for MS are: reducing drastically used games & piracy (higher income), constant monitoring of the entire user base, easier communication.
The risk for customers is to have an unreliable service.
The benefits for customers are: software always updated, new layer of politesse for games, a united community, better support.
And doubly MS will stop customers accessing that content because you have every legal right to use that content.
MS would at all effects violate you rights as customer and they are not that foolish.
I personally don't think it's time for always connected but I see why they might want it.
There are risk and there are benefits.
The risk for MS in this case is to loose customers.
The benefits for MS are: reducing drastically used games & piracy (higher income), constant monitoring of the entire user base, easier communication.
The risk for customers is to have an unreliable service.
The benefits for customers are: software always updated, new layer of politesse for games, a united community, better support.
And doubly MS will stop customers accessing that content because you have every legal right to use that content.
MS would at all effects violate you rights as customer and they are not that foolish.
I personally don't think it's time for always connected but I see why they might want it.
Last edited by a moderator: