Slashdot Mirror
New Console Always-Online Requirements and You
An anonymous reader writes "The new Xbox is almost here and the details appear to strongly suggest 'always on' is the way forward. We all know that this is an artificial requirement and certainly there are plenty of people on all sides of the table. To paraphrase the user 'tuffy' who commented on this issue at Ars Technica recently; if you're trying to sell 'always online' as a feature of the future, there needs to be some benefit for me the customer. There is not one. Or, rather, there is no sign yet of any actual clearly compelling reason why any end user would support this limitation to their purchase. So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya? Contact the Xbox team? These are all valid options but they also lack visibility. What we need is a way that could help actually quantify the levels of discontent in the gamer community. Maybe E3 attendees could turn their backs in protest like some did during Thatcher's funeral procession. Or gamers could sign some useless petition. What do Slashdotters think? Is the upcoming Steam box a reasonable plan? As a gamer, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. I really don't like it but I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it. Then again part of me is rankled by this slow erosion of access to me and my data."
The only winning move is not to play.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just don't buy one.
Err, no. This is not needed anymore. Test it: disable your connection, you can then switch to offline mode.
Stupidity is the root of all evil.
Err, no. Steam will "forget" you password after a day or two (in my case it was one day) and you will be left without being able to play untill you connect Steam to the Internet again so it can cache your password again. My internet was down for two months, I was able to play my thousands of dollars worh of games for a whole evening! :-)
(I thing the biggest probl;em with the "always on"/Steam schemes is that the game will only be usable by one person. I have tons and tons of games, when one of my kids come over and whant toplay one of my games I have to buy it again for them or not play myself (any game on Steam). At least Apples scheme allows you to install and use on five computers at one time (and is not always on).
Microsoft knows and abuses their user base. For example, all Xbox Live game servers are hosted by players. These players pay a yearly fee to MS, so that MS will grant them the privilege of hosting these servers and playing against other players. MS is basically getting free money.
Rednecks who don't know better; Call of Duty dudebros; 13 year olds with gullible soccer moms - these are all people don't give a shit about always online and represent the core audience of the Xbox brand. They'll buy the next console without asking questions and they'll create the critical mass MS and publishers need in order to push always online.
People who hope the PS4 will save us from always online are naive. Always online has always been the publishers' wet dream. They've been pushing for this for years. At the very least, MS and Sony will implement mechanisms so that any publisher will be able to impose the always online requirement for their games. And remember, MS and Sony are also publishers, and they're quite big publishers. Where do you expect people to go once all games released by Activision, EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft and others will all require always online? How will you fight a cartel in its own walled garden?
Blizzard games, Steam games, even the dreaded SimCity sell tens of millions of copies each year, despite the various types of (partially) always online requirements. Always online is here to stay and there's nothing you can do, because of the massive amount of people who will gobble this up without thinking twice.
Sig
"As a gamer, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. I really don't like it but I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it."
And that's your problem right there. Why is everybody expecting that sticking to your principles doesn't need something in return?
I also like how gamers will yell until they are blue in the face about second hand game sales and how important they are.
And then they will turn around and talk about how "Steam gets it right", conveniently forgetting it was the first place that forbid second-hand game sales.
Steam only has DRM the publishers chose. You're free to support the ones who do things DRM free. Steam does not require a connection to play in any way shape or form.
These are the facts.
What I hate so much about "always online" is that EVENTUALLY these companies are going to shut down their servers and people who want to play these games in the future will be screwed. I really do hope hacking solutions come out of this, otherwise you're going to have an entire generation of games that literally cannot be played in the future. Imagine if movies did that and you could no longer watch The Shawshank Redemption because its profitability expired a long time ago and it cost money to keep the movie servers running.
If you think this won't happen, see how Microsoft has pulled the plug on multiplayer Halo 1 / 2 or Mercenaries 2. At least the single player component wasn't affected, but for future games, it will be. Over enough time, without proper cracks, these games will be IMPOSSIBLE to play.
I hate this mentality of forcing everyone online with no recourse for when the plug eventually gets pulled. It's intentionally destroying culture in the name of profit, which I find immoral.
So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya?
Are you fucking DAFT?! You have to connect the Ouya to the Internet AND give it your credit card information before you can even use it. It requires a mandatory firmware update out of the box. Then, EVERY game must be Free To Play in some capacity. As a game dev I want to like the OUYA, but it's shit. I can't even just put a full version of a game and demo version out and have you buy the game outright if you want -- Nope, instead I have to create an in-app-purchase and lock away features calling the locked neutered game a "demo", and then I have to check with the Ouya DRM servers before you start playing the full version of the game (better be connected to the Internet, always). Other games that are "free to play" and funded via in-app-purchased micro-transactions are roughly equivalent to "always online DRM", you doofus.
Ouya == Free To Play PITA == Always Online DRM. You want to escape this crap?! So do I. Game on your damn PCs. PLEASE!
People hate 'always on' DRM. No one likes it. Some hate it with a fiery passion.
It's 'people' like you who assume the following:
That gives M$ the notion that doing this would work. Seriously, only because people like you exist, the "if you're getting raped you might as well enjoy it" logic people...fsk you and your notions of consumer choice.
Platforms can die when the alienate their users and/or make bad business decisions, ex: Sega, Neo/Geo
Thank you Dave Raggett
Steam also tends to sell games for dirt cheap, or at least below retail value. Being unable to re-sell off of Steam is bad, don't get me wrong, but the punch hurts a little less if I can't sell the $5 Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, as opposed to the $60 copy of HALO 4.
In general (but not always), people tend to accept the lack of being able to resale as a trade-off for lower prices, digital download, etc. Maybe one day (pipe dream), Steam will set up an e-Used Game Market that Steam users could buy, sell, and trade games around with. I have no idea how legal it would be for them to do that (i.e. certain publishers might not like it, be able to stop it, etc.), but it would certainly alleviate a lot of concerns.