Microsoft Apologizes For Cavalier 'Always-Online' DRM Tweets

Adam Orth, creative director of Microsoft Studios, on Thursday tweeted that "doesn't get" objections to DRM schemes that require always-on internet connection to play console games. An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft on Friday released an official statement regarding the tweets: 'We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers. We are very sorry if this offended anyone, however we have not made any announcements about our product roadmap, and have no further comment on this matter.'" I can't help reading those tweets in the voice of Sterling Archer.

Comments

"We are very sorry if you are offended..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but we're still making it always-on anyway. Fuck you. Sorry."

The summary doesn't mention

[DrEldarion]

... that they made absolutely no effort to refute the rumor. At this point, I think it's pretty safe to say that their only objection is to how the guy said what he did, but they still are going to proceed with it.

Re:The summary doesn't mention

[RogueyWon]

If you own MS shares and the launch a console with an "always on" requirement - SELL. Don't even wait for the end of the press conference.

It's not the reaction of the slashdot market you need to worry about. Will we cry foul over such a requirement? Yes. Will we be less likely to buy the console as a result? Yes. Are we a drop in the ocean? No.

Rather, it's the huge "hinterland" demographic, particularly outside the coastal US and Western Europe, that you should be concerned about. If you think that internet connections are as reliable and "always on" as the electricity supply in most of the world, then think again. Personally, I'm pretty lucky; I live in the suburbs of London and have a pretty meaty 120mbit downstream 12 mbit upstream connection with no monthly cap. But even here, reliability isn't perfect - in the 12 months since I moved into this place, I've had two serious broadband faults; that's actually better than the reliability of my old 6mbit downstream 0.5mbit upstream connection in my old place.

Get outside of the major cities and, even in the US and Western Europe, broadband connections become a lot patchier. Moreover, people who don't fall quite so far towards the nerdy end of the spectrum as I do are more likely to be on cheaper broadband packages with restrictive monthly caps; an always on device which is doing anything more than pinging status back and forward could be a major inconvenience for them.

Oh, and then you get some pretty developed parts of the world, particularly out around the Pacific Rim, where home broadband is still fairly limited (sometimes associated with ultra-high-density housing) and most net activity takes place in internet cafes.

If MS announces an always-on console, you can take that as a declaration that it's not interested in competing in those markets.

If the always-on connection is linked to restrictions on the use of used games, then you can take that as a declaration that it's not interested in competing in ANY markets.

There's a lot to dislike about Sony's record. Seriously - a lot (do I even need to say this on slashdot?). But thanks to unbelievable levels of stupidity from both MS and Nintendo, the PS4 is heading to win the next round of the console wars by default, simply by following a low-key, low-risk approach (PC-like architecture, no always-on, no used-games-restrictions, no expensive tablet controller pushing developers into territory they don't want to bother with).

Re:The summary doesn't mention

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the new Xbox will require always on connection. Everyone who has any clue has known this for months.

For Microsoft, it is primarily a box to sell subscription services - XBox Live Gold - and act as a platform for things like Netflix. That is where the money is. To be the living room box that does everything.

While going for this goal, everyone at MS who know anything about games and what gamers want have already left. It started with the whole Kinect thing. Since then, Microsoft themselves have shipped ZERO Xbox 360 titles that were not either...

- Sequels to existing huge franchises (their lip service for "core gamers", ie. they keep funding production of games series proven to sell. Halo, Forza etc.)
- Kinect junk

For the new Xbox I fully expect their presentation to be...

- 25% about the hardware and how it is better than PS4 (spoiler; it won't be)
- 25% about how kinect is the best thing since sliced bread and showing of new titles that leverage the improved sensor. All of them will be crap.
- 25% about how the new UI seamlessly ties to Windows RT / Windows 8 / Windows phone (never mind that Xbox 720 won't have touch interface - but that doesn't matter, they'll make you use a crappy touch-optimized UI even with a controller)
- 15% about how the new Xbox will happily be your living room box for video
- 10% about some core games, most of which will be multiplatform ports. Oh, there will be new Halo because well, Xbox = Halo.

Every gamer will go either for PS4 or PC.

And for the record, I own Wii, Xbox 360, DS and PC. 360 had some good stuff early but the hardware was obsolete 2-3 years ago and all development of interesting games ceased around that time. I have never owned PS3. I still think PS4 will completely own this round because Sony seems to understand that it is all about games. games. games. If that works, they can then sell all kinds of other stuff, but if the core bit isn't done right, why bother.

Ah yes, the "the customer centric approach"

[robbak]

That explains why we are all being pushed onto a schizophrenic mess that nobody wants called Windows 8.

Re:Ah yes, the "the customer centric approach"

[Opportunist]

Old joke: Why does MS put the customer at the center of their efforts?

So they can fleece him from every possible direction.

Definition of customer centric

[wbr1]

From the Microsoft dictionary, 3rd ed.

Customer Centric adj. Pertaining to any system in which the customer is trapped in the center and cannot easily remove himself. Originally this was accomplished through vendor lock-in and market share, due to changing market conditions it is now largely realized using various IP protection methods, including lawsuits against wayward users, DRM platforms, and DMCA crackdowns. If the newest legislation passes congress this month, we may should be able to add to our customer cenrtic portfolio by having over-zealous prosecutors press criminal charges on customers who stray beyond the bounds of the impenetrable EULA or any TOS we care to write. Currently customers are also kept centralized by the fact that there is no possible legal recourse to any malfeasance or negligence on our part due to the fact that all our customer-facing contracts specify that all disputes must be settled by arbitration, using arbitrators of our choosing.

See also: Coopetition, survival strategy.

Re:Translation:

[ozmanjusri]

Some Microsoft guy made some comments thorugh personal channels

Not just "some Microsoft guy". He's creative director at Microsoft's video game division. If you think his opinion is irrelevant or atypical, you're delusional.

Re:Archer?

[crafty.munchkin]

I read those tweets and felt the sheer contempt burning through the internet, as did many other people.

If the always-on thing is required for the Xbox720, effectively Microsoft are saying "we don't care if you can't use your product you purchased from us because of a hundred possible reasons". Moving house can mean a month of downtime to get internet connectivity back up, nope, can't play games during that month. Recently an Australian telephone exchange burned down in Warrnambool - the entire area had no internet connectivity for a few weeks - yep, no gaming during that time either. A tree took out my phone line and Telstra took 2 weeks to get it repaired - yep, no gaming during that time. These are just the examples I can quickly think of.

We currently own 67 Xbox 360 games in this house, and have two of the consoles (one for my wife and I and one for our kids). If having the internet permanently connected for the purposes of DRM is a requirement of the Xbox 720, I guarantee we will purchase exactly zero consoles and games for that generation.

Re:Non-apology

[rst123]

I absolutely agree with you. But I'm also not really sure what they need to apologize for. An employee stated an opinion on the net.

true, if said employee is a low level grunt, but when that employee is high level management, don't you think that changes things?

Re:Archer?

[jellyfoo]

Obviously someone cares, otherwise Valve wouldn't be throwing resources at an apparently dead market. Oh, and I care. That's at least one person.

As for the Dell-Alienwar announcement, ArsTechnica covered it. They're ultimately a far better tech site than Slashdot is, but I think Slashdot has a better selection of commenters.

Re:Archer?

[twistedsymphony]

I'm a game collector myself, I've bought 3 Xbox 360 consoles and over 150 games on that platform this generation. I will also buy exactly ZERO if the always on DRM is implemented.

For me the biggest problem is the the fact that the games have a finite time after which they will not work. The servers will not be available forever and if I'm spending money on game I want to know that I'll still be able to play them 10 years, 20 years or even further in the future. I have games that I bought in the late 80s and early 90s that I still play, it stands to reason that if I buy games next generation I will want to play them again in the distant future, but that's not going to happen if "Always on" becomes a reality. Given a long enough time frame my having an internet connection is more guaranteed than MS supporting their server for the remainder of my lifespan.

This doesn't even take into consideration people like my friends who serve in the military, and play games in their down time despite not having access to broadband while deployed, or those friends who lost their jobs due to the economy and had to cancel their internet and TV service but kept their gaming consoles as a meager source of entertainment in an otherwise shitty period in their life.

Microsoft earned the lions share of my gaming budget the last two generations and if I were to receive similar gaming experiences in the next generation I have no problem continuing to spend money that way, but if they required an internet connection I will not be giving them any money what-so-ever. I have no interest in purchasing games with an expiration date.

Re:Translation:

[Opportunist]

This wasn't some random drone, some low level programmer, whose input and decision plays no role whatsoever. This was the creative director. If ANYONE'S input in stuff like that is important, it is his.

The mere fact that this was NOT some "official" fart but actually a decision maker making a (from a purely company politically point of view) "stupid" remark says 100 times more than any "official" press release.

Re:Archer?

[Anonymous Coward]

But stop and think about how the whole game playing internet reacted to him. They basically tried to destroy a persons career - someone who has no involvement in the not actually officially announced product - over a stated opinion with a friend.

That guy is the fucking Creative Director of Microsoft, if he has no involvement with the direction the XBox at all, he is not doing his fucking job and he deserved to be fucking fired.

What he said publicly (yes, those tweets are public, even though he might have intended otherwise) does reflect on his company. This may be news to kids living the basement, but many companies have code of conducts for employees that have explicit clause for disciplinary action or even termination for employees behaving badly in public and damaging the company's image.

Re:Archer?

[ShakaUVM]

>Recently an Australian telephone exchange burned down in Warrnambool

Move.

-Xbox Creative Director

Re:Archer?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI It's "Hear Hear" not "here here". You're asking the audience to take note, you are not befriending a cat.