-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GI.biz: Xbox always-online: HERE COMES THE SPIN
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
Haunted
Member
Fingers crossed that the previous always-on failures of some of the biggest and most respected publishers in the world have already poisoned the well for most gamers and other companies will now shy away from the trend. The unanimous reaction in pretty much every thread on the issue on GAF is relatively encouraging, in that sense.
Small part of me thinks it might be too late for MS, but I guess their marketing budget will be large enough to sway/rewrite public opinion. Or to be more exact, take advantage of the ignorance of the mainstream and gain enough momentum and developer support to make this into a terrible, yet still successful, reality that everyone has to deal with.
Small part of me thinks it might be too late for MS, but I guess their marketing budget will be large enough to sway/rewrite public opinion. Or to be more exact, take advantage of the ignorance of the mainstream and gain enough momentum and developer support to make this into a terrible, yet still successful, reality that everyone has to deal with.
Nuclear Detergent
Member
Somehow the gaming press seem unwilling to address the question of what happens when Microsoft don't want to support an 'always online' console anymore, or when a publisher don't want to support a game with a heavy DRM-scheme any longer.
My main concern with an 'always on' solution is not the woes that come during launch period (these will pass eventually), but that the games that I buy in such a scheme aren't really mine to do with what I want and when I want, because they have an expiration date. While this is obviously bad for the consumer, think of the consequences for the medium: Imagine that 'Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' was only available for listening for five years, or that you could only enjoy looking at the Mona Lisa for seven. After that they were lost in limbo. Should the consumer just trust that 'Big Company X' will employ a patch that let others enjoy the works of the medium from the next generation offline when the time comes?
It all comes down to hard pressed publisher's increasingly aggressive behavior towards their costumers, in the name of control and profit maximization. The problem is that through schemes such as always online DRM, these companies indirectly paint their customers as a bunch that cannot be trusted. This strategy of aggressiveness has only increased as the AAA-development model has become less and less viable, to the point where selling 3.4 million copies of a game in three weeks, simply isn't good enough. Publishers are caught in a Jill Sandwich and of course seek to make the risk of undertaking AAA-development less risky, by implementing these always on DRM schemes. That is in itself a huge risk to take, as the highly enduring gamer (eventually) won't accept the horse biting the hand that feeds it.
My main concern with an 'always on' solution is not the woes that come during launch period (these will pass eventually), but that the games that I buy in such a scheme aren't really mine to do with what I want and when I want, because they have an expiration date. While this is obviously bad for the consumer, think of the consequences for the medium: Imagine that 'Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band' was only available for listening for five years, or that you could only enjoy looking at the Mona Lisa for seven. After that they were lost in limbo. Should the consumer just trust that 'Big Company X' will employ a patch that let others enjoy the works of the medium from the next generation offline when the time comes?
It all comes down to hard pressed publisher's increasingly aggressive behavior towards their costumers, in the name of control and profit maximization. The problem is that through schemes such as always online DRM, these companies indirectly paint their customers as a bunch that cannot be trusted. This strategy of aggressiveness has only increased as the AAA-development model has become less and less viable, to the point where selling 3.4 million copies of a game in three weeks, simply isn't good enough. Publishers are caught in a Jill Sandwich and of course seek to make the risk of undertaking AAA-development less risky, by implementing these always on DRM schemes. That is in itself a huge risk to take, as the highly enduring gamer (eventually) won't accept the horse biting the hand that feeds it.
Flatline
Banned
Can we talk with less buzzwords please? What do you mean by "pro-consumer license system"? How does always online increases the possibility of a "pro-consumer license system"? Are you implying that always online gives better chances for used games to be allowed?
I can't imagine that forcing users to be online in order to sell more content can possibly make up for the significant segment of offline gamers who will be entirely unable to use the system. That's why I'm guessing it's all about blocking used games.
He's talking about the potential license exchange system I brought up earlier.
Pyramid head
Banned
I count myself among those people.
I regularly trade in old, unwanted games to fund the purchase of new games. If that option is no longer available to me then not only will I not be able to afford to buy as many games as I currently do, but I'll be forced to be much more selective about the games I'm willing to buy.
No longer will I be willing to take a chance on gamed I'm not certain I'll love beforehand. Games with short lifespans and no replay value wont even be up for consideration. I don't need any drink costers.v
eso76
Member
Look, i'm not endorsing this or saying it's good.
But i can think of a few ways connecting games and gamers, tracking players all over the world could be put to decent use ingame. Not saying it will, i'm actually saying it probably won't, seeing as the industry is lacking creativity.
The best we can realistically hope for is "no used games policy" allowing for lower prices and steam-like deals.
But i can think of a few ways connecting games and gamers, tracking players all over the world could be put to decent use ingame. Not saying it will, i'm actually saying it probably won't, seeing as the industry is lacking creativity.
The best we can realistically hope for is "no used games policy" allowing for lower prices and steam-like deals.
Flatline
Banned
I'm not sure you can have such a system without it. If you buy a physical copy of a game and then sell that license to someone else, the console needs to be online to determine who owns that license before the game can run.
Captain Tuttle
Member
If this rumor is true (and I'm not convinced it is yet, at least as it's being reported) then you can bet that third parties will require always online for the PS4 as well. Sony has said afterall that they'd leave it up to the developer and I doubt that they wouldn't take advantage of the option. It wouldn't surprise me if Sony eventually did it with their first party games, they have online passes for MP afterall.
Either way I'm leaning PC (maybe PS4) for next gen.
Either way I'm leaning PC (maybe PS4) for next gen.
I mean relative to steam
If its always online, it means every license would be accounted for - even still decent potential for offline usability
I mean used games unlikely (due to having to create a marketplace framework dedicated to resell), but things like lending is possible. Getting credit from a game you no longer want is possible. Steam is pretty strict in most areas, so will be interesting to see where Durango ends up.
It's hard to tell exactly how the system would function as from the surface it appears to be designed to be a hybrid system of sorts... DD while keeping brick and mortar engaged.
Again though, this could be done now, FORCING people into it is not a requirement.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
I laughed, I have to admit.
"Guys, we're not making enough money out of you because of used game sales, therefore we're gonna block them, oh, and by the way, we'll reduce prices to compensate despite the fact that that means we'll still make less money."
Said no executive, ever.
But you do have an alternative though...a PS4...it is not like you have to buy the system. If others feel they are fine with the "always on, always connected" approach then it is fine we have alternatives.
But always on doesn't mean DRM btw....it could but it is wrong to assume so.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The worst part about all of this is that people are making the assumption, despite all of the evidence we have from other industries where monopolies exist, that Microsoft will magically take a pro-consumer position and allow licence transfers when even the likes of Valve and Sony don't allow it who are much more pro-consumer than MS.
If that 3 minute check is true then it is DRM.
Nobody's assuming that. It's downright unlikely, but it would be nice.
What the hell am I reading!?
The problem with the game industry is crap like this. Which is far far worse than any "potential revenue lost in the used market" and it's not something a mandatory online only console can cure.
Also you have to consider why people trade their games in, in the first place which makes the argument even more ridiculous.
You could note the ten other people who have said the exact same thing. You could also make your point in a less inflammatory manner. You don't need to make other people feel like shit on a message board.
TheSpoiler
Member
It's true that people have an alternative, but does that really negative the NextBox's problems? People have a right to shit all over a practice they don't agree with because, well, they are the consumer.
It demands more from the customer than previous products or competing products. It introduces new possibilites for error, most of which the customer cannot anticipate, prevent or fix. It reduces the customer's ownership of their copies of the games to a sort of licensing deal where the company has more power over your purchases than before.
In exchange it offers ___________ to the customer.
Flatline
Banned
Even with physical copies the original owner would have to mail the disc and the market would transfer the license as if it was a game purchased in an online market like Steam. And since Steam has offline mode so the argument doesn't make much sense.
Having said that I still object to that kind of system since it's unnecessary and doesn't benefit the consumer at all. On the contrary it creates an artificial monopoly enforced by DRM.
TheSpoiler
Member
In exchange it offers an always connected world to the customer.
Where 13-year-old CoD fans can send you hate mail even while you sleep, and the adverts can circulate faster and further intrude on your gaming life.
Requiring online is one thing, requiring persistent online is another.
We don't know which it is (very very likely the former), but system can work off either
Edit: I said latter when I meant former, oops.
I don't see why you'd have to mail the disc. When you first pop in a disc, a license is created for that user. Upon trading the license, the rights to use the game are transferred to the new user and the disc is useless. The new user then downloads the game.
This wouldn't be possible without always online because you could still potentially give that disc to someone else and they could play it on an offline console.
Flatline
Banned
Like I said, Steam has offline mode so always online is not necessary. And judging from Microsoft's policies the last few years I really really really doubt they'd create an online store more consumer friendly than Valve's.
Katana_Strikes
Member
Who says Durango can't be used offline either?
I haven't seen anything to suggest that Durango required to be online at all times, only that it needs to be online when you first play a game and that it needs to be online some of the time.
eso76
Member
Some things could, some other couldn't, at least not to the same extent.
Could be "Guys, we're forced to charge 60$ for your game, since that has to cover the fact it will be resold 2 or 3 times, thus effectively halving our sales*. Since we're making sure each copy of the game can only be used by one person, we could maybe charge a little less and hope to sell twice the copies."
I have no idea. Numbers are pulled out of my ass, i don't know how many used games are sold each day, but i don't think it's entirely unrealistic to expect sales to increase significantly by blocking used games AND reducing the price, thus still being more profitable for the dev.
"Always-online/Always-on"
TheSpoiler
Member
Last week, Comcast shut down my internet because they thought I hadn't paid (ahh but I did). While I waited for those pigheaded morons to return service, I played some TLR for a good hour. All I had to do was click "Offline Mode" and I could play my games. This was great.
Now, if MS won't let the customers do that, then there's a huge problem here.
So you have no evidence either?
Because those are marketing terms which don't suggest they will require online.
ThisWreckage
Banned
It's almost like they're only concerned with the NA audience. This thing is going to be a resounding failure in Japan (even more so than the 360) and Europe if the rumors are true. I can also see them relinquishing market share to Sony in NA, but not a lot. The fact of the matter is that a lot of gamers in NA associate the Xbox brand with Madden, Call of Duty, Gears and Halo and they'll lap up whatever Microsoft throws at them.
TheSpoiler
Member
I'm really curious as to how people could miss the Twitterfest of a few days ago, where a man was defending Always-online. A MS employee at that.
The company didn't even try to defend themselves or say he was wrong. It was just a "sorry if you were offended" statement and a shrug.
All the leaks and rumors are about Durango requiring an Internet connection to run any game and any app. There is no "only the first time" rumor, that was something made up by a Microsoft apologist to make the rumors sound less repulsive.
If you're talking about MMO type features then that can be (and is) done now too and this is accepted by the people who buy the game as it's a critical part of the experience. What people are objecting to is those same restrictions being extended to ALL games for no benefit to the player.
I just can't see a price reduction getting the OK. If anything I am expecting next gen to RRP at £10 more.
He was a creative lead.
I didn't miss anything. I just know what's relevant.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Every single rumour so far. One even mentioned a 3 minute offline limit before the console boots you out to the start screen.
Heh. But even these are possible already. I honestly can't fathom how this should impact my view of the product as a customer anything but negatively. If the next xbox will really be online-only, I'm very curious to see how they will try to market it.
I apologize that I think your point is silly?
You are aware that we'd be relying on the good will the dev/publishers to do that right?
And given how a company like EA, tries to bleed people dry with silly DLC policies, my faith in that happening is nil.
Heck there are some games in my game store that goes £5 above the RRP these days.
If publishers set the prices and their games aren't selling at full price, they'll have to lower the prices over time. Whether the price curve follows that of used game prices is anyone's guess.
Either way it goes, Microsoft seems to be running with the idea. So we'll actually see how their little experiment ends up, and we won't have to sit here arguing theoreticals.
TheSpoiler
Member
Thank god you know what's what and we don't. I'm truly in your debt for gracing us with your information and facts. What would we have done without you?
Edge, Vgleaks, devs saying "pay your isp bills", every other rumor about Durango have all said it would require an Internet connection to be able to do anything worthwhile... Oh and Kinect needs to be connected or your can't so anything either.
Seth Balmore
Member
How incredibly anti-consumer is this article? People living in rural areas? Shaky internet connections? That didn't stop Diablo III from selling 12+ million units, and sales numbers are the only thing shareholders care about, so who the fuck cares about the rest. Yes I know, companies aren't a charity, but how about some integrity?
Funny how they end it with "that's not a roundabout way to say 'deal with it'". A rather convoluted and verbose way to say "deal with it" is exactly what I got from this article. Ugh.
Funny how they end it with "that's not a roundabout way to say 'deal with it'". A rather convoluted and verbose way to say "deal with it" is exactly what I got from this article. Ugh.
So a small piece of info without context or details, eh. The rumors have been funny, however.
TheSpoiler
Member
Keep spinnin', baby!
Funny how they didn't know if it was a dev thing or a consumer thing....more likely it is a dev thing to make sure they get the update for their SDK.
Actually the best approximation is to Disney's MyMagic+ and Magic Band, a profiling system, where they need 100% adoption rate to make any sense of the profiling data they generate, and all your reservations will be tied in the system, if the the RFID tags don't work - or the system has gone down - Disney can't access your reservations.
You guys are the only ones spinning.
eso76
Member
Then Durango can suck my Durandong.