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."
What's so hard to understand? I like to have a games on my laptop or other device which I can play on an airplane, on the commuter rail, on a camping trip, etc... there are many times where I play games and do not have reliable internet... not to mention the potential security flaws which may exist in the networking code of said games which could compromise my devices. Maybe some people don't want to be online all the time. No?
The issue is not "intermittent Internet connectivity." Most of the people who are spun up on this are concerned about the principle of always-on DRM in general. Even if people had an iron-clad agreement with their ISP that they would provide them with five-nines uptime on my WAN connection, it doesn't change the basic principle that lots of people are miffed that their Internet connection is being used on a 24-hour basis to demonstrate that they are, in fact, not thieves.
Of course, this doesn't even address the fact that the most reliable Internet connection in the world is completely useless if the server(s) that you're attempting to connect to are down due to incompetence, unanticipated demand, DDoS attacks, etc.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Heh, that if only it were that easy.
Now here is where your choice affects me: if the internet-dependent console is successful, others will probably copy the model. In addition, the attention of game developers will be drawn towards it instead of competing consoles. Therefore, it is completely rational and logical for me to advocate my preference and try to get persuade you to see the merit in it. Your choice can indeed be a problem for me.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Don't want a gaming console that requires a persistent internet connection? Don't get one!
Exactly right.
And the market will show that the vast majority of gamers could not care less whether an Internet connection is required or not, so long as the game is fun. And since game development is all shifting towards multi-player anyway, with only token efforts being made for the lonely solo console players, this whole issue borders upon moot.
Five years from now, just two categories of game will be made: Multi-player for consoles, solo (with multi-player functionality) for mobile devices.
There are two things that bias the perspective of these business men.
The first is that they look at business models rather than what the consumers want, and try to shape the consumer to meet the needs of their business model. Their main interest, after all, is to make money. The best way to make money, reliably, is to have a plan and execute it. Selling a product without a plan is suicidal, particularly for large businesses that need to coordinate within their own structure and with third party developers and suppliers.
The second issue is that these business people know what their lives and interests are like, but they rarely understand the market as a whole. They have reliable high-speed internet because it is a function of their job, their lifestyle, and their income. They fail to consider that some people buy consoles because they live in rural locations and don't always have access to other forms of entertainment (or reliable, high-speed internet for that matter). They fail to realize that some people buy consoles because it is a relatively cheap form of entertainment, and may not be able to afford reliable high-speed internet. If the motivation is to kill off the second-hand game market, they fail to realize that even the big spenders use that to offset the cost of their entertainment. And that's just the stuff that would be easy for them to understand, because it is quantifiable. What about the stuff that is harder for them to understand because it isn't quantifiable, like privacy?
Gabe will applaud this move and remind people that there is offline mode for quite a fair share of Steam games and will be glad to sell a console that will double as a generic PC with linux under hood.
Also trying to inconvenience the users is not the best selling strategy. Given choice, I'd rather get a console that does not require me to be always online (hint: what do you do when the internet is out?)
Also, vacuum analogy is pretty shitty. I wouldn't buy a vacuum that only functions when internet is on. Single-player games don't need internet connectivity all the time - so artificial inconvenience for customers will make pirated copies all the more popular. Choosing between a free copy that doesn't require internet connection to play and a rather expencive one, that doesn't is a no-brainer.
The government would never get anything done, and if they did, they would just be squishing the minority even harder.
"Well we had a 75% majority, so you just need to go fuck off."
Democracy is not a system for creating correct answers, it is a system for co-opting the masses into government by giving them at least the illusion of control. That's not to say that it's actually a bad system of government, but to achieve it's goals, you don't really need complete consensus, you just need to co-opt enough of the people so that you don't have popular revolt. Even in a Direct Democracy, that is the case.
There are just some things that a minority of the population actually understands better than the majority due to specialization. While I wouldn't necessarily consider scientists particularly qualified to set ethics, for instance, I would consider them properly qualified to set priorities for research and development, once the actual goals and needs of the population are determined.