Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Creative Director 'Doesn't Get' Always-On DRM Concerns
New submitter SoVi3t points out comments from Microsoft Studios Creative Director Adam Orth about the debate over always-online DRM, brought to the fore recently by the disastrous launch of SimCity and rumors that the next-gen Xbox console will require it.
"Don't want a gaming console that requires a persistent internet connection? 'Deal with it,' says Microsoft Studio's creative director. In what he later termed a 'fun lunch break,' Orth took to Twitter to express his shock at people who take umbrage with the idea of an always-on console. When quizzed by other Twitter users about people with no internet connection, he suggested that they should get one, as it is 'awesome.' He then likened people who worry about intermittent internet connectivity being an issue as the same as someone not buying a vacuum cleaner because the electricity sometimes goes out. While Orth later apologized, saying it had being a bit of banter with friends, it did raise awareness that there are more than a few people who are very unhappy with the possibility of an always-on future version of the Xbox. Orth has also now switched his Twitter account settings to private."
Don't want a gaming console that requires a persistent internet connection? Don't get one!
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Microsoft has a very long history of not understanding what customers want.
He then likened people who worry about intermittent internet connectivity being an issue as the same as someone not buying a vacuum cleaner because the electricity sometimes goes out.
So if we were to fulfill that analogy you would have to expect there are vacuum cleaners that already exist that run without electricity -- as almost all the games I own run without an internet connection. Now, a new vacuum cleaner comes out but it is required to always be plugged into the wall and it will only work if it is connected to a service that costs me a monthly payment. Correct, I would not buy this "new" vacuum cleaner as I have tons of old vacuums that somehow manage to get the job done without the need of electricity.
Unsurprisingly I have purchased none of these always-on for the sake of DRM games.
You're introducing a feature that none of your customers want -- a feature that complicates a product and causes them inconvenience for unclear benefits to you. A feature that introduces a new dependency and more moving parts to run the game. And how are you surprised, exactly, that there are many people upset about this?
My work here is dung.
See, I've always expected people like this don't ignore our concerns, they just can't comprehend we HAVE concerns. "I don't understand why you're all 'Argh, I'm starving!' Why don't you just get some food?"
To turn the article title around: "Gaming Console Users 'Doesn't Get' Always-On DRM Requirements". And based on the SimCity launch (there's been other examples, but this one is, in my opinion, the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back), this has been the reality for a long time.
Adam Orth has quite possibly done a fair bit of irreversible damage for the next-gen XBox's prospects.
This is why Microsoft is losing market share and why so many analysts are worried about the company's long-term future. "Deal with it" seems to be Microsoft's mantra not just in the console market, but with Windows as well. They let their employees' pride and stubbornness override basic business considerations. Metro must be shoved down everyone's throat, even if not a single desktop user wants it. Because if they backed down, then the people who worked on Metro would feel bad, and we can't have that, can we? The thing is, Microsoft can no longer get away with this kind of behavior. They're being pressured in the consumer space by tablets and smartphones and in the business space by evangelists of "the cloud". Just as Windows started out as a toy and then grew to dominate the market, we may see the same thing happen with Android – especially since, as an open-source product, anyone (not just Google) can take it in the direction they see fit.
Orth, Ballmer, and those who think like them are soon going to figure out that "deal with it" isn't an acceptable answer when you're trying to get people to buy your stuff.
Whilst the customer isn't always always right, in this situation, the customer is. The customer doesn't want an always on connection. This applies to a lot of potential customers. Telling the customer they're wrong isn't going to make the customer change his mind. It's going to result in the customer not being a customer any more.
That is true, but this situation is even more perverse. They now not only have to pay to keep the server running but the second the next version of the console/game ships they have a direct incentive to kill off the old DRM server. So not only can they deprive you of your game, but they have an incentive to do so to get you to upgrade on their schedule not yours.
people with no internet connection, he suggested that they should get one, as it is 'awesome.'
.01% faster than the last gadget you bought six months ago, live in a wonderland world. They have no clue, nor understanding, of people who don't care one wit about tweeting their latest shit or posting their latest cute puppy picture.
Just because you make $100K+/year and live in an area which has decent broadband doesn't mean the rest of world does. When you make $40K/year, have a mortgage payment, maybe a kid or two, car loans, maybe student loans, having to pay anywhere from $70/month or higher for slow broadband is not high on ones priority.
This dismissive attitude, "I have it so it must be the best thing in the world!" is symptomatic of the tech culture. People who are glued to their screens as they check their Twitter feeds every ten seconds, Facebook updates every 30, and can't wait to stand in line for the latest and greatest gadget which will works
It may be hard for those who are heavy tech users to understand, but there are large and vast numbers of people on this planet who don't give a flying fuck about what you're doing. Certainly some are technophobic, but a large portion of those people just don't care. The treadmill of upgrading equipment, having to figure out how to use the latest and greatest piece of crapware that some developer, or company, thought was the be all and end all, the relentless drone of having to be always connected or you're not living life to its fullest, doesn't appeal to them. They want to know: how is this useful to them (aside from online banking or research), yet no one can give them a good answer.
The usual response is something along the lines of, "You can keep in contact with your friends!" or, "You can find out where to eat before you get to some place." I guess it never occurs to people who have grown up on the pablum of technology that if one wants to communicate with friends they don't need to tweet, "We're coming over in 10 minutes! LOL" to communicate. A simple phone call or prearranged meeting is all that is necessary.
Further, one doesn't have to plan out where they're going to eat when they visit a place. Exploring can be fun in and of itself. Besides, if one wants to know where to eat, they can ask someone at a gas station or on the street. Granted, this means having to TALK to a LIVE HUMAN BEING, but that is one of the dangers we all must navigate.
If you don't get why people may not have an internet connection, let alone broadband, Mr. Orth, then that says all one needs to know about you and your company. You live in a fantasy land with only the barest of tendrils touching reality. Your deluded sense of self-importance is a shining example of what is wrong in tech, yet its lesson will go unheeded because if you're not connected, if you don't have the latest and greatest gadget, if you're not spending every waking moment staring at 3" screen, then you're a loser, right Mr. Orth?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
For me when DRM(especially Always-On) gets involved I no longer own the game. I am just licensing the game. The company may take away my license at any time.
I don't mind licensing a game. But lets get it straight that in no way shape or form should I be expected to pay the same amount for a license of a game and a copy of the game which I can do whatever I want with. I think this is why Steam has had so much success is because I often feel like their prices are taking this concept into thought.