Microsoft Creative Director Can’t Sympathize With Always-Online Concerns

[Nintz]

Origin isn't overwhelmingly bad, but I only bought Dragon Age and the Mass Effect trilogy via it. Maybe other games work worse with it.

Steam, on my internet connection, is about equal. A pain to work with (ate up my data limit not once, but twice without me knowing) but it is okay for what it is.

 

[civvver]

I actually think he is right, just about 20 years premature. Eventually wifi will be everywhere, probably paid for by your city taxes, like any other utility it will be as commonplace as a water bill and you always expect water when you turn on your faucets. I just don't think we're there yet and you shouldn't encumber your customers.

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah okay. Wifi technology would need not only a huge jump in technological advances to have a much longer range and more power but also be incredibly and ridiculously cheap AND reliable.

Its nowhere near being feasible for a city to provide except in a small downtown area.

 

[Dell19]

I think its realistic to assume that internet connections will have improved in 20 years time with fibre and unlimited broadband becoming more common at least in terms of the UK.

Presumably it'll be the successors of 3G and 4G that provide coverage on the go.

 

[civvver]

Well it won't be today's wifi. 4g lte is already capable of broadband speeds and has good coverage in major cities. My city was considering doing city wide free wifi last year. I understand the outcry because I have friends who don't have good internet because the live in the country but in general it's not that big of a deal for well over half of gamers. We just don't like the idea of drm and always online is always interpreted as (usually is) drm.

 

[Antilogic]

Gotta say, Adam Orth is amazing at customer relations. No wonder they pay him the big bucks.

 

[Quintillus]

I heard about this. Pretty boneheaded comments to make given his position, and it wouldn't surprise me if it led to a chat with his superiors and/or HR. HR probably loves that he's insulted everyone who lives in Paul Ryan's hometown, and the home of Virginia Tech. I agree with Maniacal's assessment of him.

I mean, they essentially already do this with minimum spec requirements on computer games. Either get x GB of RAM or don't play the game. Either get a Windows OS or don't play the game. Get a PS3 or don't play baseball video games. No XBox no Halo etc. I like always-online functionality as little as every other person right now but this really isn't any different than the sort of stuff they've been doing for a long time.

It is different, though. The minimum requirements are there for technical reasons. Ex. you really need 2 GB of RAM or this game is going to run slower than molasses in January. You could argue that they could work to lower the minimum requirements, but this can sacrifice elements of gameplay. For example, if they lowered the minimum system requirements for Civ4 by getting rid of trade routes and the associated calculations, most of us would consider that a loss for the game, even if it did take less time between turns.

The "run it on this OS/system" are often at least somewhat technical, too. You can't make a PS3 game run on XBox without considerable effort, and similarly for a Windows game running on OSX. If the economics don't make sense, it won't happen. Sometimes exclusives do happen on consoles where it might have made economic sense to have it on more consoles. And I'm sure there are games where perhaps the developers could have made money by porting it to OSX, but decided they'd rather work on other projects. But even then, it would take effort to make it work in both of those cases.

Whereas adding always-on DRM does nothing beneficial for the game whatsoever, while the minimum-spec-increasing traits almost always do add something. And while making a game run on another platform will take time (and thus money), it would actually be easier to leave always-on DRM out.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Even if internet improves 20 years in the future, I don't think it'd be *that* cheap. And even if it's cheaper, there'll still be plenty of poor folks - including those around the world - who can't afford internet.

 

[Maniacal]

And plenty of people who don't live in cities, or who live in sprawling suburbs, or might live in a deadspot or place where the signal is poor.

 

[civvver]

Ok I guess I glazed over the tech specs part- it's completely different. It's akin to saying I need an mmo rpg to have an offline option. Now many companies make their graphics very scalable so people with low end pcs can play them, but in general most games are designed for consoles with all the same hardware anyway.

 

[civvver]

Even if internet improves 20 years in the future, I don't think it'd be *that* cheap. And even if it's cheaper, there'll still be plenty of poor folks - including those around the world - who can't afford internet.

Then how can they afford an xbox? And internet will most likely be free by then, much like broadcast tv or as some sort of community service. Guys it is coming, libraries are all going to be online, you're going to pay all your taxes online, everything will be online and there will be incentive to have a global free network.

 

[Maniacal]

There is no way in hell the ISP and telecoms, which are some of the most money-grubbing corporations there are, will let that happen.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Then how can they afford an xbox? And internet will most likely be free by then, much like broadcast tv or as some sort of community service. Guys it is coming, libraries are all going to be online, you're going to pay all your taxes online, everything will be online and there will be incentive to have a global free network.

A gaming console or a PC is a one-time commitment. Internet is something you have to pay on a regular basis.

Plus, I don't think internet will be free in every country. I doubt it would happen anytime soon. Even if it does happen, that doesn't change the fact that it's not happening now and won't happen for a long time. Not everyone is a relatively financially well-off dude living in a major city of a developed country.

Until the internet is actually available for free and is required for most if not all important essentials in life, there's no need for gaming to be always online.

 

[Maniacal]

Even then there is no need for games to be online that you are playing by yourself.

 

[Antilogic]

Even then there is no need for games to be online that you are playing by yourself.

I think this is the complaint that most people have. It's not that people object to WoW or any other MMO that has to be online to play, because that's what the game is. People are objecting to game franchises/types they like being converted into online-only content when it was perfectly good not being online. And, when it turns out the online gimmick is a ham-handed anti-piracy measure and not really necessary for the core game mechanics, they tend to get really angry about it.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Consoles need to remember what they are. If they try to become too "cutting edge" they will trade away most of their appeal.

They may ignore my warning if they like, and they will be devoured by far more cutting edge devices like tablets and brain implants or w/e.

 

[Maniacal]

Apparently Adam Orth no longer works for Microsoft.

 

[da dick]

i'm not moving to koreas anytime soon so.... xbox720... unless someone comes up with an offline hack for it or something.

 

[Nintz]

Apparently Adam Orth no longer works for Microsoft.

This seems obvious given the public outcry.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If I may weigh in for a moment, for me the problem with online-only DRM is not so much that it requires me to have a good internet connection. Indeed most of the time that is no problem. However it makes me dependent on them to perform to a standard I expect. With SimCity for example, I could possibly have lived with always-online DRM if it functioned reliably, but it doesn't and to make matters even worse (and IMO this is the height of stupidity) they decided to make savegame functionality server dependent with no local option.
Ironically the online requirement would have been more palatable to gamers if it was less necessary for the game to function, although there'd still be the hardcore anti-DRM guys making their stand.

EA were right when they described DRM as a failed dead-end strategy, but only in the context that they're talking about using it solely as an anti-piracy measure. The strategy which they know will (and does) work is to place more control of the consumer into the hands of the publisher. Valve with Steam is a perfect example of how with even just a little bit of control over the consumer you can greatly influence their behaviours, perceptions and purchases. The reason Valve isn't hated so much for doing it though is that they dangle enough carrots so that even those fully cogniscant of the controls placed on themselves decide the benefits outweigh the cons.

In the West consumerism permeates through our whole culture and companies like these have a captive audience no matter how bad PR they receive now and then.

Getting back really to the topic, online-always DRM is about a control grab. For example it's easy to get users to watch targeted advertisements if they're dependent on your 'service' and you've enough data about them to have a good digital profile for the purpose of marketing.