To use the horse situation, yeah, if you want to own horses there are going to be fairly unavoidable location issues you'll have to account for That should not be the case for a video game console
why?
Because it isn't necessary?
+3
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Therefore, always on has one advantage IMO: if always online on consoles and many, many other things becomes a norm, it is one of many factors (others are streaming services like Netflix etc.) that will FORCE providers to invest more into their infrastructure and thus making our connections better and more reliable, because their customers suddenly need better connections and not only connections that are good enough for some basic internet browsing.
This is a great point, thanks for the contribution! Had not cconsidered that.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Therefore, always on has one advantage IMO: if always online on consoles and many, many other things becomes a norm, it is one of many factors (others are streaming services like Netflix etc.) that will FORCE providers to invest more into their infrastructure and thus making our connections better and more reliable, because their customers suddenly need better connections and not only connections that are good enough for some basic internet browsing.
This is a great point, thanks for the contribution! Had not cconsidered that.
Oh fuck that noise. Do you know how hard ISPs are trying to shut down youtube and netflix because A) they eat up all the bandwidth and they aren't controlling the revenue stream? Youtube is only as big as it is because Google bought a ton of dark fiber and built their own network off it, only utilizing the ISPs for the last mile. And as for the revenue stream controls... SOPA comes to mind.
Dude. If the president of the mother-fucking United States of America has spent 5 years trying to promote the improvement of infrastructure and internet accessability to 0 success, what the fuck do you think Microsoft will be able to accomplish, especially if they are directly competing against the cable companies for your entertainment dollar?
The dumb thing is, a written statement in which a publisher / manufacturer laid out their case, and said: "We have conducted X, Y and Z research and it is our measured and considered opinion that the revenues lost via piracy and used game sales outweigh revenues lost from gamers who cannot be always connected" would make me feel a lot better than the useless PR bullshit they do use to justify this Always On stuff.
Now, to me, personally, an Always On connection is of little consequence. But I also think consumers displease about it potentially being forced into a console when, from research I have seen, the market is not ready to support it yet. But then again, I do not have access to the data that they likely do.
Then again, I thought the same when Apple stopped putting Optical drives in their Macbooks. And I was pretty wrong there.
So here's a thing...what happens when the next gen always on console comes out and doesn't support all the games you bought for this one? What happens when they switch off the servers supporting that older console? You have an expensive brick and a lot of coasters you can't do anything with.
Also, that whole "fuck you, got mine" argument sucks.
Because you're saying that just because a company wants something we should view it as acceptable.
let me try to explain my point of view in another way:
the way I see it, there are two kinds of customers
1) the "ordering" customer
2) the "choosing" customer
what do I mean by that?
Number 1 is a customer that for example gives an artisan an order to build something ... let's say: a horse stable. Since he is giving out the order to the artisan, he decides how the horse stable should be built, he decides what colour the roof has etc. And the artisan has to do exactly what the customer wants. And only if he does what the customer wants, he gets his money.
Number 2 is different. Videogames are product that are made first and then, they are offered to customers. These customers can then choose if they like said product or not and if they do, they buy it and if they don't like it, they don't buy it. The difference with Number 1 is that the "artisan" for customer Number 2 makes the product first and he makes it like he wants it to be ... and then the customer can choose if this product fulfills his needs or not.
What I want to say is: like with most arts and entertainment mediums (movies, music etc.) we are the Number 2 type of customers. There are products available and we choose the products we like. Now while it is common sense to make a product you hope everybody likes, the fact is that the creator of the product can make whatever product he likes to make. If said product is an always on console, he has every right to make an always on console ... because nobody is forced to buy it.
So, to get back to your quote: yes, what a company wants is totally acceptable, because it is THEIR product. You don't need to buy it if you don't like it.
If a company chooses to only serve people with a good internet connection ... that's their decision and they have every right to do so.
It's not like there are no alternative products on the market And even if "the big three" will one day decide to only do always on, there will still be alternatives (like Ouya or whatever). As long as there is a customer base with needs, there will be someone that fulfills these needs. BUT in my opinion, the customer base that would be fine with always online will grow larger and larger and one day, "offline gaming" will be a niche. Onlinegaming was a nice not even 15 years ago ... look at it now. A lot of people buy Call of Duty and a lot of those people play ONLY the multiplayer modes. It's a development years in the making and it will continue that way. Social Gaming, Games as a Service, MMOs etc.
The popularity of World of Warcraft or the multplayer mode of Call of Duty is no coincidence. It's what people want. And as I said: it is common sense to make a produckt that "everybody" likes .. and by everybody, I mean "the majority". And the offline gamers are slowly but steadily losing the majority to the online gamers.
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."
I live in one of the richest countries in the world and we weren't supported by XBL for years ... so I get what you saying.
The fact that you think not being supported by XBox Live means you have any idea of the scope of the problem you're claiming is trivial to solve is one of a large number of signs that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Internet connectivity in the US is so poor and unreliable that working from is simply not an option for most people. I have a friend who is doing tech support for an ISP that requires her to use their service. They are unable to provide service to her location, so because the company can't get its shit together, the lead installer in the area is simply having her work out of his office/network room. It's actually a pretty nice office, and apparently this is the first time it's seen more than annual use in 5 years, but that should give you a bit more to work with. Just to be clear, said ISP is more than happy to provide service down the road, they just don't want to put in the infrastructure needed to run a wire all the way to her house (ie: another few blocks. which is full of potential customers).
Not to mention that packing up and moving is expensive as hell in most places (sell one house, buy another house. Find a house before you do either of those. Find a job in the new area, which may not be an option. Move away from everyone you know).
Frankly, you've managed to spend at least a page coming off as someone who has simply assumed that everywhere in the world is just like where you live.
But it was my understanding that in the USA, moving often is a very common thing
Tell you what. Find me a study that indicates that and I'll stop laughing at you.
Therefore, always on has one advantage IMO: if always online on consoles and many, many other things becomes a norm, it is one of many factors (others are streaming services like Netflix etc.) that will FORCE providers to invest more into their infrastructure and thus making our connections better and more reliable, because their customers suddenly need better connections and not only connections that are good enough for some basic internet browsing.
This is a great point, thanks for the contribution! Had not cconsidered that.
I don't put much water in it at all for the US
You need competition for that to work and here in the States the problem is the numerous areas that lack anything resembling real competition.
And quite frankly as far as Microsoft goes looking at it from a sales standpoint? "Doesn't work/works poorly? Complain to your ISP or something" doesn't strike me as a great plan.
+2
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
You know what's the only reason that lets me put up with Steam's always-on DRM? and I mean the only thing.
It's the fact that someday, if Steam ever goes under, they've promised to release the DRM and let me keep all the games, for me to digitally backup as I desire, or discard if I ever want.
No way in hell is a console that can't even support its downloaded e-content from the previous version going to be able to offer that.
The only way I can see this idea of 'always on' working is as mentioned earlier each console had a built in 3G module and each game requirement for always on was for a simple line of code sent through the 3G for verification each time you run a game. Amazon have a 'free' built in 3G on particular Kindle models so it is possible. However, even with that in place it will still exclude a large proportion of consumers who may not even have sufficient 3G signal and a simple line of code to verify could be so easily abused.
In the UK for internet connection can be extremely poor even in well built cities. Most good internet connection speeds are dependent on how close a person's line is to the street/area's phone terminal box.
Because you're saying that just because a company wants something we should view it as acceptable.
let me try to explain my point of view in another way:
the way I see it, there are two kinds of customers
1) the "ordering" customer
2) the "choosing" customer
what do I mean by that?
Number 1 is a customer that for example gives an artisan an order to build something ... let's say: a horse stable. Since he is giving out the order to the artisan, he decides how the horse stable should be built, he decides what colour the roof has etc. And the artisan has to do exactly what the customer wants. And only if he does what the customer wants, he gets his money.
Number 2 is different. Videogames are product that are made first and then, they are offered to customers. These customers can then choose if they like said product or not and if they do, they buy it and if they don't like it, they don't buy it. The difference with Number 1 is that the "artisan" for customer Number 2 makes the product first and he makes it like he wants it to be ... and then the customer can choose if this product fulfills his needs or not.
What I want to say is: like with most arts and entertainment mediums (movies, music etc.) we are the Number 2 type of customers. There are products available and we choose the products we like. Now while it is common sense to make a product you hope everybody likes, the fact is that the creator of the product can make whatever product he likes to make. If said product is an always on console, he has every right to make an always on console ... because nobody is forced to buy it.
So, to get back to your quote: yes, what a company wants is totally acceptable, because it is THEIR product. You don't need to buy it if you don't like it.
If a company chooses to only serve people with a good internet connection ... that's their decision and they have every right to do so.
It's not like there are no alternative products on the market And even if "the big three" will one day decide to only do always on, there will still be alternatives (like Ouya or whatever). As long as there is a customer base with needs, there will be someone that fulfills these needs. BUT in my opinion, the customer base that would be fine with always online will grow larger and larger and one day, "offline gaming" will be a niche. Onlinegaming was a nice not even 15 years ago ... look at it now. A lot of people buy Call of Duty and a lot of those people play ONLY the multiplayer modes. It's a development years in the making and it will continue that way. Social Gaming, Games as a Service, MMOs etc.
The popularity of World of Warcraft or the multplayer mode of Call of Duty is no coincidence. It's what people want. And as I said: it is common sense to make a produckt that "everybody" likes .. and by everybody, I mean "the majority". And the offline gamers are slowly but steadily losing the majority to the online gamers.
Thank you for giving me basic lessons in economics, truly I did not realise this.
I shall never complain about anything again because it's not vile until nobody buys it.
Oh, wait, that's a dumb attitude.
A company should want to make money. If you want to make money you need to not be a dick. Going always online is pretty much a dick move and unpopular as hell.
Besides, the issue with always online and protesting it by just 'not buying it' is that's actually really, fucking, hard. What do you think happens when a game is packaged with DRM bullshit and nobody buys it?
They shut down the studio that made it. No ifs, no buts, nobody turns around and goes 'you know maybe that 'anti-piracy measure' that worked for all of five days was dumb as hell' what actually happens is they go 'well the consumer doesn't want stuff made by X company because they clearly did a bad job' and then they shut down that company.
On the other end of the scale if a large game comes out with shitty policies (EA is famous for milking the 3rd game in a series for cash) it's fucking obnoxious because then they see tons of people buy it and maybe a few pick up some of their shitty policies out of loyalty to that product and they keep making it.
It's a really terrible case of confirmation bias, if the product does badly it's the products fault. If the product makes money it's a great case for how whatever practice they have is a great idea.
So, to get back to your quote: yes, what a company wants is totally acceptable, because it is THEIR product. You don't need to buy it if you don't like it.
No one is arguing this.
The argument being made is "That's a moronic wholly unnecessary avenue for the company to pursue, one that will arbitrarily screw over a portion of their consumer base and thus fuck Microsoft if they do decide to go down that path"
+14
CuvisTheConquerorThey always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered Userregular
You know what's the only reason that lets me put up with Steam's always-on DRM? and I mean the only thing.
It's the fact that someday, if Steam ever goes under, they've promised to release the DRM and let me keep all the games, for me to digitally backup as I desire, or discard if I ever want.
No way in hell is a console that can't even support its downloaded e-content from the previous version going to be able to offer that.
The thing is, Steam isn't "always-on". You'll never get booted out of a Steamworks game because your internet connection dropped during your game (unless it's an online game, of course), and YMMV, as I've heard differently from others, but whenever I've tried to start Steam without a connection, I get a pop-up saying the Steam server could not be contacted and asking if I want to start in offline mode. Compare that to the latest rumors about the NeXtbox, which say your game will be suspended if you're disconnected longer than three minutes.
The only way I can see this idea of 'always on' working is as mentioned earlier each console had a built in 3G module and each game requirement for always on was for a simple line of code sent through the 3G for verification each time you run a game. Amazon have a 'free' built in 3G on particular Kindle models so it is possible. However, even with that in place it will still exclude a large proportion of consumers who may not even have sufficient 3G signal and a simple line of code to verify could be so easily abused.
In the UK for internet connection can be extremely poor even in well built cities. Most good internet connection speeds are dependent on how close a person's line is to the street/area's phone terminal box.
Even that would be a problem in the US. The US has a far greater amount of sprawl than other countries, and many areas still have poor cellular connectivity on one or more of the available networks. Where my brother lives, if you don't have AT&T, you get no connection at all.
CuvisTheConqueror on
+8
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Oh, I know. There is no way in fucking hell I'm touching any always-on product with a 10 foot pole unless it is a multiplayer-only game. Steam's the closest I've gotten, and there was my reasoning.
There's also that kind of insidious undercurrent of what Microsoft is allegedly going to do with the always-on connection that is coloring the debate as well, of course.
Microsoft should just buy Oculus Rift and make it their next console. If you have vision problems or require glasses or don't have great neck mobility or whatever, that's not their problem.
If you can't afford corrective eye surgery, you can choose not to buy it. That's the great thing about being a consumer.
Or if it is important enough to you, you can raise that money to fix your abnormal vision and be able to play like the rest of us. If you can't afford it, then maybe you've got more problems besides buying a $500 console.
So, to get back to your quote: yes, what a company wants is totally acceptable, because it is THEIR product. You don't need to buy it if you don't like it.
No one is arguing this.
The argument being made is "That's a moronic wholly unnecessary avenue for the company to pursue, one that will arbitrarily screw over a portion of their consumer base and thus fuck Microsoft if they do decide to go down that path"
That. When people say something is "unacceptable", they don't mean that there's some cosmic law that prevents it. They mean they won't accept it, and will vote with their wallet.
Suggesting that someone should move because of video games is like suggesting someone should move because of not having this or that restaurant near them. It's not a good argument, and really isn't really going to sway anyone who doesn't want an always online system.
I never said videogames are a good reason to move.
But I consider the Internet Connectivity AS A WHOLE as a good reason because in my opinion, the internet is becoming more and more a basic need to live like electricity and hot water.
Because yeah, you could live (like in: surviving) without the internet. But you could also survive without electricity or hot water ... but it would be very inconvenient. And not having a stable internet connection is something that gets more inconvenient day by day ...
Just to give you one example: a friend of mine works night shifts. Now here, we don't have stores that are open 24/7 besides some gas stations. Most shops close doors at 6pm. They open at 8am earliest. So basically, the shops are open when my friend is sleeping. This makes shopping for groceries very unconvenient for him, especially since he owns no car (he has a leg injury an cannot drive a normal car)
Luckily, many supermarkets nowadays offer online shopping: you choose your wares online and you get them delivered to your home.
Granted it's not a perfect example because a) you don't need a very fast, stable internet connection for that and b) you could probably do this by phone as well ... but still it's one example where the internet really helps somebody and if he had no internet, his life would be harder.
Another example: in my country, video rental stores are dead. They are literally non existent! One of the reason is the internet. We got some good Video on Demand Services here and many, many people simply download movies online (illegally) instead of renting them in a video store. So these stores closed down one by one. Now, if you want to watch a movie legally without buying it or going to the cinema, you only have two options: 1) a friend who bought it rents it to you or 2) you use an online service like lovefilm or whatever ... if you don't have a good internet connection, option 2 get's unavailable.
Again, not a perfect example because movies aren't a necessity ... but I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at.
Personally, I do understand that the internet is more of a "given thing" to me than it is for other people on this planet. But besides the fact that it's easier for me to have good internet than for others, I personally consider the internet to be something VERY important and something that has to be reliable. And therefore, in my point of view, moving because the internet isn't reliable where I live is not an insane thought. and as I said before: apparently, many people in Germany are moving because of that exact reason! So I don't think I#m a crazy person
Of course ONLY moving because of the internet may be crazy ... depending on how important you rate your internet connectivity. Lots of people live just fine without internet at all. But I'm not one of them, I NEED my internet for many, many reasons and I need a reliable connection and if that means I have to move to another village or city, it#s something worth considering.
Again, I can only speak for me personally, but moving to the place where I live now and having a better internet connection really improved my life. It improved my work life, my social life, my "gaming life" (before, I wasn't even really able to play online a lot, now I'm playing an MMO almost daily) and my "entertainment at home life". It's not the only reason why my life improved after moving but it's one of them and it's a big one. And maybe that's why I can relate to Orths comments ... because I did it and it was a good experience. I don't consider moving because the internet sucks a stupid or crazy idea ... where I lived before, I lived way cheaper and had more money ... but I'm happier now and a large part of that happiness is contributed to the better internet connection.
Sicho on
"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Sicho man you really got to stop digging yourself deeper.
I never said videogames are a good reason to move.
But I consider the Internet Connectivity AS A WHOLE as a good reason because in my opinion, the internet is becoming more and more a basic need to live like electricity and hot water.
And that's why, IMHO, we need a Rural Broadband Project a la FDR's Rural Electrification Project. But until the day comes where somebody can even propose such a thing without being called the second coming of Joseph Stalin, the reality is that many people in the US, MS's biggest market, don't have access to a fast and reliable internet connection, and cannot or will not move simply to get one. And this isn't even getting into other countries whose infrastructure is worse than our own. Therefore, MS building such a requirement into their consoles for such dubious reasons is a risky move at best.
+9
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
He does have a point - we are building a house in a new estate, and a big reason why is because it will have access to Australia's new fibreoptic broadband network.
He does have a point - we are building a house in a new estate, and a big reason why is because it will have access to Australia's new fibreoptic broadband network.
Will it have a data limit monthly cap?
If so, will you be okay with losing access to your (hypothetical) console when you hit that limit?
He does have a point - we are building a house in a new estate, and a big reason why is because it will have access to Australia's new fibreoptic broadband network.
Will it have a data limit monthly cap?
If so, will you be okay with losing access to your (hypothetical) console when you hit that limit?
It has a 2TB cap, and is shaped to 1mbps when you hit that limit. Reduces the functionality of the service for speed purposes to near nothing, but for the purposes of an always-online authentication process, it'd be fine.
I'm not saying that always-online is great and fine just because *I* am moving.
I'm just saying that @Sicho isn't pulling it out of his ass that people can and do move for the purposes of better utilities, including the internet.
0
CuvisTheConquerorThey always say "yee haw" but they never ask "haw yee?" Registered Userregular
He does have a point - we are building a house in a new estate, and a big reason why is because it will have access to Australia's new fibreoptic broadband network.
Not everybody has that option. I mean, if I could move wherever I wanted, I'd go up to the Bay Area, get some of that sweet Sonic.NET fiber, and live high on the bandwidth hog. But there's the considerable costs of moving to consider, the fact that I'd be leaving my family behind, the fact that I have a pretty good job where I am and don't need to deal with job-hunting again, etc. to consider. Some people can pick up and move at a moment's notice, and some people can't.
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
Good points, but if you're out to make the most money possible, why stop there? You can also require that people pay you money every month to be subscribed to your online service (that the system doesn't work without).
Free, high-speed internet should be a basic given thing, as you are put at a ridiculous disadvantage without it. But we're still paying for electricity, so that's a ways off.
Still, shit like Simcity breeds ill will when pirates are playing the game free of charge and your 60 bucks has you looking at a queue screen for an indeterminate time.
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
There are plenty of reasons besides getting rid of used games. In fact they might support used games and still be always online.
One good reason might be simply for tracking purposes. They would have full data on how often games are played, for how long, how often they are traded in, how many people end up owning them, etc. They would have hard stats saying "oh look, it turns out single player platformers change hands 5 times, that's 5x the money we could be making on them."
They could require online to prevent the slightest possibility of piracy - no more taking the console offline forever and playing offline games from hard drives.
Maybe they just want you to live within their infrastructure at all times. Maybe they want to be able to guarantee to devs that games will always be patched the moment the patch hits so they can release even more broken games. Maybe they want to be able to have streamed ads on billboards even in single player games, there's no escape.
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
There are plenty of reasons besides getting rid of used games. In fact they might support used games and still be always online.
One good reason might be simply for tracking purposes. They would have full data on how often games are played, for how long, how often they are traded in, how many people end up owning them, etc. They would have hard stats saying "oh look, it turns out single player platformers change hands 5 times, that's 5x the money we could be making on them."
They could require online to prevent the slightest possibility of piracy - no more taking the console offline forever and playing offline games from hard drives.
Maybe they just want you to live within their infrastructure at all times. Maybe they want to be able to guarantee to devs that games will always be patched the moment the patch hits so they can release even more broken games. Maybe they want to be able to have streamed ads on billboards even in single player games, there's no escape.
Tons of reasons.
Are any of those reasons worth the cost, not only to maintain servers, but also the good will costs to your customer base? While companies may be willing to fuck over their customer base if they can make more money off of doing so, they're not willing to screw over their customer base at a loss.
I'm not in favor of it, but maybe Microsoft thinks it's worth it.
The more you can lock in and guarantee certain aspects of a system the better. If you have a system with a hard drive and a system without, you have to make allowances for the system without. Same for online.
I don't have the insight into MS's plans. Maybe they want to do a Share system like PS4, but they're not making it optional. Who knows!
Free, high-speed internet should be a basic given thing, as you are put at a ridiculous disadvantage without it. But we're still paying for electricity, so that's a ways off.
Still, shit like Simcity breeds ill will when pirates are playing the game free of charge and your 60 bucks has you looking at a queue screen for an indeterminate time.
If anything, it seriously needs to be put on the same pedestal and mindset that electricity and water is. The internet is no longer a luxury recreational thing. It's a damn utility now.
Free would be awesome, but I think that's only in a Star Trek utopia type of future. Which who knows if we as a species will ever reach that.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
There are plenty of reasons besides getting rid of used games. In fact they might support used games and still be always online.
One good reason might be simply for tracking purposes. They would have full data on how often games are played, for how long, how often they are traded in, how many people end up owning them, etc. They would have hard stats saying "oh look, it turns out single player platformers change hands 5 times, that's 5x the money we could be making on them."
They could require online to prevent the slightest possibility of piracy - no more taking the console offline forever and playing offline games from hard drives.
Maybe they just want you to live within their infrastructure at all times. Maybe they want to be able to guarantee to devs that games will always be patched the moment the patch hits so they can release even more broken games. Maybe they want to be able to have streamed ads on billboards even in single player games, there's no escape.
Tons of reasons.
Are any of those reasons worth the cost, not only to maintain servers, but also the good will costs to your customer base? While companies may be willing to fuck over their customer base if they can make more money off of doing so, they're not willing to screw over their customer base at a loss.
I'm sure Sony though that $600 for the PS3 was a reasonable price.
The point is that video game companies are very bad at projecting the effect these kinds of things have on actual sales.
Y'know... on the surface, the suggestion to "move somewhere" to get better internet connectivity seems goosey on the surface, but has some merit. I've always said to myself that I will never move somewhere that has terrible internet connections because I've grown so accustomed to stable, fast, reliable internet where I currently live.
It goes both ways too. When I'm in the market for a new house, reliable internet connectivity is going to be very high on my checklist of things it requires.
+1
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I'd bring up the infinitely-repeated point that some places just have shit for internet connectivity, but amazingly, that still seems to fall on deaf ears regardless of how absolutely true it is.
no believe me, I get that. But I'm with Orth on one thing: just move away from there. (if possible with your job etc.)
That's not a solution. I'm not even getting into the implications beyond the scope of this thread in what you're suggesting.
Sicho I see that your location is in Europe. I think that you need to afford people in the United States the benefit of the doubt when they describe to you the status of our internet infrastructure. It is a jagged, disjointed, collapsing mess that is maintained at minimal levels. It's pathetic. To a degree, I understand the idea that running the lines costs money. But even in the places where such lines exist, competition doesn't exist (as in choosing this company or that over the same medium).
Try to appreciate the information and feedback you're getting.
Y'know... on the surface, the suggestion to "move somewhere" to get better internet connectivity seems goosey on the surface, but has some merit.
There's a vast, vast difference between "I am moving, and among the determining factors I will use to select my new house is its internet connectivity (somewhere behind price, convenient access to work, school district, etc.)," and "I am moving specifically to get better internet access."
I will not buy a console with an always online requirement. I will not buy a console that requires a subscription to use it. I like my consoles with no frickin' strings attached. Call me old fashioned. I buy a console, I buy my games, they work....I'm happy. You mess with this setup I'm not buying your product.
If the whole point of going always online is to get rid of used games, I'm not exactly sure why they'd choose to go "Always Online".
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
There are plenty of reasons besides getting rid of used games. In fact they might support used games and still be always online.
One good reason might be simply for tracking purposes. They would have full data on how often games are played, for how long, how often they are traded in, how many people end up owning them, etc. They would have hard stats saying "oh look, it turns out single player platformers change hands 5 times, that's 5x the money we could be making on them."
They could require online to prevent the slightest possibility of piracy - no more taking the console offline forever and playing offline games from hard drives.
Maybe they just want you to live within their infrastructure at all times. Maybe they want to be able to guarantee to devs that games will always be patched the moment the patch hits so they can release even more broken games. Maybe they want to be able to have streamed ads on billboards even in single player games, there's no escape.
Tons of reasons.
Are any of those reasons worth the cost, not only to maintain servers, but also the good will costs to your customer base? While companies may be willing to fuck over their customer base if they can make more money off of doing so, they're not willing to screw over their customer base at a loss.
I'm sure Sony though that $600 for the PS3 was a reasonable price.
The point is that video game companies are very bad at projecting the effect these kinds of things have on actual sales.
Good point. If Microsoft is stupid enough to go this route in the most draconian way possible they pretty much deserve what they get. Going through the 360 generation, however, I just can't believe they would. They don't seem to be that ridiculously out of touch with gamers.
No I don't.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Telling someone to move if they don't like their internet is a bit of a dick move. As much as I'd like to move, my finances don't allow for it.
Stop saying this, stop saying the idea has merit, stop entertaining it in any fashion.
Posts
Because it isn't necessary?
This is a great point, thanks for the contribution! Had not cconsidered that.
Oh fuck that noise. Do you know how hard ISPs are trying to shut down youtube and netflix because A) they eat up all the bandwidth and
Dude. If the president of the mother-fucking United States of America has spent 5 years trying to promote the improvement of infrastructure and internet accessability to 0 success, what the fuck do you think Microsoft will be able to accomplish, especially if they are directly competing against the cable companies for your entertainment dollar?
Now, to me, personally, an Always On connection is of little consequence. But I also think consumers displease about it potentially being forced into a console when, from research I have seen, the market is not ready to support it yet. But then again, I do not have access to the data that they likely do.
Then again, I thought the same when Apple stopped putting Optical drives in their Macbooks. And I was pretty wrong there.
Steam: adamjnet
Also, that whole "fuck you, got mine" argument sucks.
let me try to explain my point of view in another way:
the way I see it, there are two kinds of customers
1) the "ordering" customer
2) the "choosing" customer
what do I mean by that?
Number 1 is a customer that for example gives an artisan an order to build something ... let's say: a horse stable. Since he is giving out the order to the artisan, he decides how the horse stable should be built, he decides what colour the roof has etc. And the artisan has to do exactly what the customer wants. And only if he does what the customer wants, he gets his money.
Number 2 is different. Videogames are product that are made first and then, they are offered to customers. These customers can then choose if they like said product or not and if they do, they buy it and if they don't like it, they don't buy it. The difference with Number 1 is that the "artisan" for customer Number 2 makes the product first and he makes it like he wants it to be ... and then the customer can choose if this product fulfills his needs or not.
What I want to say is: like with most arts and entertainment mediums (movies, music etc.) we are the Number 2 type of customers. There are products available and we choose the products we like. Now while it is common sense to make a product you hope everybody likes, the fact is that the creator of the product can make whatever product he likes to make. If said product is an always on console, he has every right to make an always on console ... because nobody is forced to buy it.
So, to get back to your quote: yes, what a company wants is totally acceptable, because it is THEIR product. You don't need to buy it if you don't like it.
If a company chooses to only serve people with a good internet connection ... that's their decision and they have every right to do so.
It's not like there are no alternative products on the market
The popularity of World of Warcraft or the multplayer mode of Call of Duty is no coincidence. It's what people want. And as I said: it is common sense to make a produckt that "everybody" likes .. and by everybody, I mean "the majority". And the offline gamers are slowly but steadily losing the majority to the online gamers.
Internet connectivity in the US is so poor and unreliable that working from is simply not an option for most people. I have a friend who is doing tech support for an ISP that requires her to use their service. They are unable to provide service to her location, so because the company can't get its shit together, the lead installer in the area is simply having her work out of his office/network room. It's actually a pretty nice office, and apparently this is the first time it's seen more than annual use in 5 years, but that should give you a bit more to work with. Just to be clear, said ISP is more than happy to provide service down the road, they just don't want to put in the infrastructure needed to run a wire all the way to her house (ie: another few blocks. which is full of potential customers).
Not to mention that packing up and moving is expensive as hell in most places (sell one house, buy another house. Find a house before you do either of those. Find a job in the new area, which may not be an option. Move away from everyone you know).
Frankly, you've managed to spend at least a page coming off as someone who has simply assumed that everywhere in the world is just like where you live.
Tell you what. Find me a study that indicates that and I'll stop laughing at you.
I don't put much water in it at all for the US
You need competition for that to work and here in the States the problem is the numerous areas that lack anything resembling real competition.
And quite frankly as far as Microsoft goes looking at it from a sales standpoint? "Doesn't work/works poorly? Complain to your ISP or something" doesn't strike me as a great plan.
It's the fact that someday, if Steam ever goes under, they've promised to release the DRM and let me keep all the games, for me to digitally backup as I desire, or discard if I ever want.
No way in hell is a console that can't even support its downloaded e-content from the previous version going to be able to offer that.
In the UK for internet connection can be extremely poor even in well built cities. Most good internet connection speeds are dependent on how close a person's line is to the street/area's phone terminal box.
Thank you for giving me basic lessons in economics, truly I did not realise this.
I shall never complain about anything again because it's not vile until nobody buys it.
Oh, wait, that's a dumb attitude.
A company should want to make money. If you want to make money you need to not be a dick. Going always online is pretty much a dick move and unpopular as hell.
Besides, the issue with always online and protesting it by just 'not buying it' is that's actually really, fucking, hard. What do you think happens when a game is packaged with DRM bullshit and nobody buys it?
They shut down the studio that made it. No ifs, no buts, nobody turns around and goes 'you know maybe that 'anti-piracy measure' that worked for all of five days was dumb as hell' what actually happens is they go 'well the consumer doesn't want stuff made by X company because they clearly did a bad job' and then they shut down that company.
On the other end of the scale if a large game comes out with shitty policies (EA is famous for milking the 3rd game in a series for cash) it's fucking obnoxious because then they see tons of people buy it and maybe a few pick up some of their shitty policies out of loyalty to that product and they keep making it.
It's a really terrible case of confirmation bias, if the product does badly it's the products fault. If the product makes money it's a great case for how whatever practice they have is a great idea.
No one is arguing this.
The argument being made is "That's a moronic wholly unnecessary avenue for the company to pursue, one that will arbitrarily screw over a portion of their consumer base and thus fuck Microsoft if they do decide to go down that path"
The thing is, Steam isn't "always-on". You'll never get booted out of a Steamworks game because your internet connection dropped during your game (unless it's an online game, of course), and YMMV, as I've heard differently from others, but whenever I've tried to start Steam without a connection, I get a pop-up saying the Steam server could not be contacted and asking if I want to start in offline mode. Compare that to the latest rumors about the NeXtbox, which say your game will be suspended if you're disconnected longer than three minutes.
Even that would be a problem in the US. The US has a far greater amount of sprawl than other countries, and many areas still have poor cellular connectivity on one or more of the available networks. Where my brother lives, if you don't have AT&T, you get no connection at all.
There's also that kind of insidious undercurrent of what Microsoft is allegedly going to do with the always-on connection that is coloring the debate as well, of course.
If you can't afford corrective eye surgery, you can choose not to buy it. That's the great thing about being a consumer.
Or if it is important enough to you, you can raise that money to fix your abnormal vision and be able to play like the rest of us. If you can't afford it, then maybe you've got more problems besides buying a $500 console.
That. When people say something is "unacceptable", they don't mean that there's some cosmic law that prevents it. They mean they won't accept it, and will vote with their wallet.
I never said videogames are a good reason to move.
But I consider the Internet Connectivity AS A WHOLE as a good reason because in my opinion, the internet is becoming more and more a basic need to live like electricity and hot water.
Because yeah, you could live (like in: surviving) without the internet. But you could also survive without electricity or hot water ... but it would be very inconvenient. And not having a stable internet connection is something that gets more inconvenient day by day ...
Just to give you one example: a friend of mine works night shifts. Now here, we don't have stores that are open 24/7 besides some gas stations. Most shops close doors at 6pm. They open at 8am earliest. So basically, the shops are open when my friend is sleeping. This makes shopping for groceries very unconvenient for him, especially since he owns no car (he has a leg injury an cannot drive a normal car)
Luckily, many supermarkets nowadays offer online shopping: you choose your wares online and you get them delivered to your home.
Granted it's not a perfect example because a) you don't need a very fast, stable internet connection for that and b) you could probably do this by phone as well ... but still it's one example where the internet really helps somebody and if he had no internet, his life would be harder.
Another example: in my country, video rental stores are dead. They are literally non existent! One of the reason is the internet. We got some good Video on Demand Services here and many, many people simply download movies online (illegally) instead of renting them in a video store. So these stores closed down one by one. Now, if you want to watch a movie legally without buying it or going to the cinema, you only have two options: 1) a friend who bought it rents it to you or 2) you use an online service like lovefilm or whatever ... if you don't have a good internet connection, option 2 get's unavailable.
Again, not a perfect example because movies aren't a necessity ... but I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at.
Personally, I do understand that the internet is more of a "given thing" to me than it is for other people on this planet. But besides the fact that it's easier for me to have good internet than for others, I personally consider the internet to be something VERY important and something that has to be reliable. And therefore, in my point of view, moving because the internet isn't reliable where I live is not an insane thought. and as I said before: apparently, many people in Germany are moving because of that exact reason! So I don't think I#m a crazy person
Of course ONLY moving because of the internet may be crazy ... depending on how important you rate your internet connectivity. Lots of people live just fine without internet at all. But I'm not one of them, I NEED my internet for many, many reasons and I need a reliable connection and if that means I have to move to another village or city, it#s something worth considering.
Again, I can only speak for me personally, but moving to the place where I live now and having a better internet connection really improved my life. It improved my work life, my social life, my "gaming life" (before, I wasn't even really able to play online a lot, now I'm playing an MMO almost daily) and my "entertainment at home life". It's not the only reason why my life improved after moving but it's one of them and it's a big one. And maybe that's why I can relate to Orths comments ... because I did it and it was a good experience. I don't consider moving because the internet sucks a stupid or crazy idea ... where I lived before, I lived way cheaper and had more money ... but I'm happier now and a large part of that happiness is contributed to the better internet connection.
And that's why, IMHO, we need a Rural Broadband Project a la FDR's Rural Electrification Project. But until the day comes where somebody can even propose such a thing without being called the second coming of Joseph Stalin, the reality is that many people in the US, MS's biggest market, don't have access to a fast and reliable internet connection, and cannot or will not move simply to get one. And this isn't even getting into other countries whose infrastructure is worse than our own. Therefore, MS building such a requirement into their consoles for such dubious reasons is a risky move at best.
Shills gotta shill, man. Otherwise they don't get paid.
Will it have a data limit monthly cap?
If so, will you be okay with losing access to your (hypothetical) console when you hit that limit?
It has a 2TB cap, and is shaped to 1mbps when you hit that limit. Reduces the functionality of the service for speed purposes to near nothing, but for the purposes of an always-online authentication process, it'd be fine.
I'm not saying that always-online is great and fine just because *I* am moving.
I'm just saying that @Sicho isn't pulling it out of his ass that people can and do move for the purposes of better utilities, including the internet.
Not everybody has that option. I mean, if I could move wherever I wanted, I'd go up to the Bay Area, get some of that sweet Sonic.NET fiber, and live high on the bandwidth hog. But there's the considerable costs of moving to consider, the fact that I'd be leaving my family behind, the fact that I have a pretty good job where I am and don't need to deal with job-hunting again, etc. to consider. Some people can pick up and move at a moment's notice, and some people can't.
Think about the way the 360's licenses work for DD games. You have a license tied to the console itself, and a license for the account. If you're looking to get rid of used games, just put a damned key into the case and only have it need to be verified once online. Have the key be tied to both the console and the account. If they lose the connection, the game still runs. I just can't find any reason to do it any other way. While it's not a perfect system (quite frankly the perfect system is pretty much the way it works right now), and it would still receive a lot of flack for stopping used games, it'd still mitigate a lot of the problems people have with always on, which seems to boil down to not being able to have a good/stable internet connection instead of having to have some form of internet connection at all. If your target is used games, why go with a system that requires the users to have perfect, instead of a system that just requires the users to have something?
Good points, but if you're out to make the most money possible, why stop there? You can also require that people pay you money every month to be subscribed to your online service (that the system doesn't work without).
Free money.
Still, shit like Simcity breeds ill will when pirates are playing the game free of charge and your 60 bucks has you looking at a queue screen for an indeterminate time.
There are plenty of reasons besides getting rid of used games. In fact they might support used games and still be always online.
One good reason might be simply for tracking purposes. They would have full data on how often games are played, for how long, how often they are traded in, how many people end up owning them, etc. They would have hard stats saying "oh look, it turns out single player platformers change hands 5 times, that's 5x the money we could be making on them."
They could require online to prevent the slightest possibility of piracy - no more taking the console offline forever and playing offline games from hard drives.
Maybe they just want you to live within their infrastructure at all times. Maybe they want to be able to guarantee to devs that games will always be patched the moment the patch hits so they can release even more broken games. Maybe they want to be able to have streamed ads on billboards even in single player games, there's no escape.
Tons of reasons.
Are any of those reasons worth the cost, not only to maintain servers, but also the good will costs to your customer base? While companies may be willing to fuck over their customer base if they can make more money off of doing so, they're not willing to screw over their customer base at a loss.
The more you can lock in and guarantee certain aspects of a system the better. If you have a system with a hard drive and a system without, you have to make allowances for the system without. Same for online.
I don't have the insight into MS's plans. Maybe they want to do a Share system like PS4, but they're not making it optional. Who knows!
If anything, it seriously needs to be put on the same pedestal and mindset that electricity and water is. The internet is no longer a luxury recreational thing. It's a damn utility now.
Free would be awesome, but I think that's only in a Star Trek utopia type of future. Which who knows if we as a species will ever reach that.
I'm sure Sony though that $600 for the PS3 was a reasonable price.
The point is that video game companies are very bad at projecting the effect these kinds of things have on actual sales.
It goes both ways too. When I'm in the market for a new house, reliable internet connectivity is going to be very high on my checklist of things it requires.
That's not a solution. I'm not even getting into the implications beyond the scope of this thread in what you're suggesting.
Sicho I see that your location is in Europe. I think that you need to afford people in the United States the benefit of the doubt when they describe to you the status of our internet infrastructure. It is a jagged, disjointed, collapsing mess that is maintained at minimal levels. It's pathetic. To a degree, I understand the idea that running the lines costs money. But even in the places where such lines exist, competition doesn't exist (as in choosing this company or that over the same medium).
Try to appreciate the information and feedback you're getting.
There's a vast, vast difference between "I am moving, and among the determining factors I will use to select my new house is its internet connectivity (somewhere behind price, convenient access to work, school district, etc.)," and "I am moving specifically to get better internet access."
The first is reasonable; the second is ... silly.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Good point. If Microsoft is stupid enough to go this route in the most draconian way possible they pretty much deserve what they get. Going through the 360 generation, however, I just can't believe they would. They don't seem to be that ridiculously out of touch with gamers.
Stop saying this, stop saying the idea has merit, stop entertaining it in any fashion.