Microsoft Creative Director on Always Online: 'Deal With It'
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/05/microsoft-creative-director-on-always-online-deal-with-it
anyone see this yet ? Market Suicide, with the pushback after the Sim City fiasco I cannot image this being a good idea
anyone see this yet ? Market Suicide, with the pushback after the Sim City fiasco I cannot image this being a good idea
Replies
On another note, the way this dude is publically handling this is a good way to get fired. He's only been there a year? No need to be a dbag about the topic.
I hope people do vote with their wallets, I know if this is true I'll be sticking with Sony until a price drop for Microsofts console.
And yeah, it's pretty douchey to act like that. Sure, everyone can have a personal opinion, but if you're in a certain position you better keep it to yourself, or between you and your drinking buddies, and let you company's spokesperson deal with it.
I take it all the games will be downloaded then? Makes you wonder about low-income or rural folks with limited or no internet.
http://www.quickmeme.com/Always-Online-Adam-Orth/popular/1/?upcoming
So because 90% of the games you play on PC are online its okay for the next Xbox console to always be online? Did you ever stop and think for a second before you posted this that you're comparing somethings where you NEED to be online to something where it's just arbitrary.
Then you say "deal with it." like "GUYS ITS FINE FOR ME SHOULD BE FINE FOR EVERYONE." You literally can't be anymore egoistic than this, it's already been proved countless of time that "ALWAYS-ONLINE" never works in favor for the company or the byers. Do I need to remind you about Diablo 3? Or how about Simcity 5? How many people couldn't play those games they bought due to "always online" where the servers were down.
Or, how about this. Call me when you wanna plug in your Xbox Durango (or whatever its gonna be called) after the Xbox after Durango has launched and you wanna play your old games, but Microsoft pulled the servers because they have a new console out. Call me then I will say "DEAL WITH IT."
I really hate this attitude, "I'm unaffected by X because what I do aligns with X, so it doesn't effect me and those that complain about X should just deal with it." Just because it doesn't impact you, doesn't mean that it isn't bad or wrong. Just because you've never been punched in the balls doesn't mean that isn't bad or wrong.
There's an underlying issue here that needs to be addressed. When you buy a game, it isn't really yours to keep. The publisher/hardware maker still holds the power to yank that game(s) away from you at any time, for any reason. Simply because they designed it to require certain criterion to be met and without it, you can't play regardless of whether that requirement was technically necessary.
So, good for you that you're not affected by this. You are truly fortunate, but don't denounce others for taking issue because it does affect them.
Though does it mean though there will be no easy way to turn the console off versus "sleeping" even if you aren't using it? What a waste of energy if so.
Depends on what you mean, on their end they have done pretty good with the severs. But when it comes to what happens when your internet connection goes down its another thing. I have never been able to power up my computer without an internet connection and playing any games bought via Steam and so goes for the majority of people using it. It's not like it's a new thing that it doesn't work, Valve knows about it but haven't been able to fix it for years.
I should note that I have gotten steam offline to work, but that was when I lost my internet connection and I was already online.
Many of us in Americas dont see it this way because we are always on.
Your post says it all sir.
There's this big problem: We're not getting anything back by required to be always-online. The consumers are just getting screwed.
You're getting live tiles... that are always live, and maybe even with changeable colors.
This feels to me like its "We want max visibility for ads on a dashboard" rather than "We're bringing something exciting to our consumers."
Oxynary - As far as I know, most steam games don't require a constant internet connection to play if you enable "offline mode." At most they require you to touch the server once with a certain amount of time to verify. I know I've been able to play games without a connection before.
On an related note, he's egocentric pretty much, I'm not sure how someone in his position can be allowed to speak freely like this, especially since in the US alone, well over half of the country doesn't have internet connection outside of Comcast who pretty much drop the line on you every other minute.
Also, apparently that entire "Always stay connected" and "Why the fuck would I move there" lines are supposedly in between jokes between him and Manvee guy? That's the excuse anyhow, which doesn't explain on why they couldn't keep the joke private, I mean are these 2 twats seriously so starved for media attention?
He also pretty much answered the same twaty way to his other followers that debated him that aren't his friends.
Lastly, the Neogaf link (they're having a field day): http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=534951
Nice to see MS is targeting only the high life style people, and Korea /s.
Yep, MS hired a good one indeed, I'm glad to see all this 'sane' talent isn't being hired so loudmouths like him can be put in nice places to run amok to generate positive PR /s.
Anyone know how that is effecting the game sales?
I believe it has surpassed 10 million sales.
[ame="
Also, yes, it does. Blizzard argued that it would stop confusion for people so when they jump on the online portion of the game with friends, you wouldn't have mutiple characters (online and offline version), kinda like the old games, and patching would be more unified.
But then the PS4 version is revealed and it doesn't need an online connection, unlike the PC version, so no one is sure why they pulled that stunt, but it shows that Sony knows how to wring the arms of Dev's and what makes sense for their selling platform.
Sales wise, all online is really doing is delaying piracy, that's about it. I mean instead of getting a game pirated in the first week before the game is even out, you most likely will have to wait a few weeks to get it post release day.
It might convince a few people to buy the game right off the bat instead of waiting for it, but usually these people will wait for a discount on the title, so you're not really gaining anything.
Plus the entire "Sales, DRM, Online and Piracy" thing has been debated to death, and unless we're able to create a time-machine in which you can test different scenario's with a group of people, then it's all hot-air to debate.
Just like SC2 or WoW, it sold due to Heritage name sequeling more the anything, a friend of mine who hates online only games still bought D3 because of it's name, and refuses to try any other games (POE, TL2, etc) but still complains about it.
Then he got a copy of it for his brother, his 2 cousins and 2 for his other friends so they could all play together, that's already 6 copies on day one from a small group of people that I alone know, imagine on a bigger scale how that 10M will read if you actually broke down the numbers and reasoning.
Related note, hilarious gif on NGF:
always online and REQUIRED online are different. The devices (phones, gps, tablet) that are online serve a purpose but it is not required. Please tell me why my console need to be online ? If i want to play NHL 14 on xbox, why do I need to be online
The problem with offline mode is, it works fine if you have a connection to fall back on. But if you go for extended periods without internet access, you have to be certain that you always exit Steam before you shut down your PC. If you don't, you will corrupt the .blob file that contains your login information and Steam will refuse to play any of your games until you can get online again and reconfirm your credentials.
I found this out the hard way when the people that we were splitting internet access with bought a new router that was incompatible with my bridge and I was without internet for a few weeks. I shut down the PC without first exiting Steam and I found the next day that I couldn't even open Steam, much less access the games I paid good money for. It would insist on going online for an update first. Shortcuts didn't help, because Steam launches from the game's executable. Now I'm not sure I want to buy any more games through Steam. It isn't as great as people think it is.
I don't see how limiting consumer choices comes down to a 'deal with it' ultimatum. There must be more to this story because something like this doesn't even make sense from a business logic, let alone any other.
The future might be heading towards always online, but as how it stands today, always online is not really supported by the infrastructure. Even then, my "devices" has online as an optional feature. It's nothing something I must have to use my "devices". For example, my phone does not need an internet connection to use the basic feature of the phone, if I want to use facebook or check my mail. Sure I need to be connected to the internet, but thats OPTIONAL.
How many more copies of a game will you be able to sell with that attitude? Not everyone who ones a certain hardware will be buying your game mind you.
What about Data-Caps? Canada still has them in many places, and you're paying dearly for them! There is a reason less people in France are pissed off about this with their cheap packages and stable connections.
What about ISP providers which force you use their shoddy Router, then can bearly handle more then a couple of Wireless Connections? What about Lan-Console parties in that case?
Please, please, please, don't be that guy. People are already fighting tooth and nail to get better internet connection, and this has been the big debate for the last couple of months on the net.
Just sometimes we want to go home and play a dumb game and chill, I don't need that extra barrier where my down-time becomes my upset time that the new game I got is not working because of this, forcing me to spend a week with my ONLY_INTERNET_PROVIDER_IN_MY_AREA in which they tell me to fuck off and deal with it.
What am I supposed to do? Move to a new city with higher bills? Get a new job in a new place? Leave my family? All for a stable internet connection to play a game and 'death with it'? And we will have many game Dev's say "OH, sorry, we have to lay you off because the game sold about several million copies less then anticipated, because our customer pool was limited by console target demographic".
At that point, who has the right to bitch about anything? MS will spending trillions just to secure exclusives, no sane Dev's will just hope in and make it exclusive at that point, even XBLA Dev's have a back-up plan of porting their games more times then not and refuse MS exclusivity.
Until North America stop artificially inflating internet packages, I'm sorry, but no, people shouldn't have to deal with it, companies with multi-million dollars and researchers have to fucking deal with it.
Holy shit. Sunhi makes THE BEST GIFS EVER.
I don't have to go to store (physically) and so, i run steam, press 2 buttons, and game is already downloading. few mins later, i'm already playing game.
So, it made things easier. That's why, atleast imo, Steam is so succesfull. Valve seems to understand this logic.
But This always online thing...it doesn't really bring you anything good, it just brings you problems. That's just pure bad buisness (spelling?). And on the long run, that kind of attitude will backfire on you eventually.
And other thing..."deal with it".....why? If i am your customer, it is in your best interesting to deal with me, not me with your weird ideas. I give you money, not wise-versa.
This is not only a little arrogant thing to say, but somewhat....how to put it....stupid too. Because if it backfires and people refueses to buy it, it will make you look quite stupid.
I dunno what's with some companies and this "deal with it attitude". We are customers, you would expect they would treat you as such...
man, i know it can't be helped, so i end dealing with it. Nobody put a gun on your head and force you to buy a new xbox. Just don't buy it if you don't like its draconian DRM.
I also have a smartphone but i don't use it for internet, unless if i have my computer turned off and i want to see the mail (wifi mode). Internet connection should be optional, but if they say "no", it can't be helped.
I see with very good eyes the hardware/account binding of games.
BTW, who does not have a permanent connection to the internet nowadays?. I buy almost all the games digitally, and like me, too many people. There are people "living" at facebook or twitter... ¬¬
And there's still that thing, that i don't gain anything fron this.
And still, if i read correctly, playstation 4 will not require always online. If so, this just stupid thing to say from company's point of view (with such a strong contender like PS4 anyway)...
But what about the people who have no choice? I gave my cousin my old 360. He is only 14 and his parents are not that well off. They don't have internet let alone a computer. His birthday comes around and his parents scratch together what they can to get him the "New Xbox" they get home and boom, he can't play his birthday present because they can't afford to pay for broadband every month.
Have always online features but it is stupid to lock someone out of playing a game they bought. People will deal with it by going to Sony if this is true.
At the end of the day I think it's a move in the wrong direction, I'm in no way ever going to buy a game that requires me to play with an internet connection, unless it is a complete multiplayer online experience, of course Battlefield 3 has both. But games like God of War, MGS, FIFA, Resident Evil, Drake's Fortune - fuck that. They can suck it up if they want my money, the only reason I play the games is for the single player experience. Diablo III was/is a disgrace, bring back the days when you could fire up the console and just play the game.
I think good points have been brought up about Steam, but overlooked. "Always On" does not implicitly mean "Fails when it's off". These are not mutually exclusive. I think the media is doing a great job of drumming up criticism surrounding the failures with Simcity and Diablo, but since Steam didn't fail in such a catastrophic way...it doesn't count? These are double-standards, are they not?
I'm not trying to defend or stand up for either side, and especially not for this guy - but I'm playing devils advocate. When we make a decision to design something with always-on in mind, clearly it gives us freedom as developers to provide things we otherwise couldn't, right? Of course it puts an onus on us to have those things fail gracefully but as we move towards a more connected world, should merely wanting to taking advantage of that connectivity be considered such an atrocity?
Clearly some companies have recently required always-on for their own gain, and with no benefit to the user. That's wrong. But that doesn't define what always-on is - it doesn't mean "ALWAYS ON IS EVIL" because one or two entities used it against our best interests.
Microsoft clearly doesn't have a golden history of doing whats best for consumers out of the kindness of their heart. They are a business, like all these other businesses. But as a developer, I can imagine the benefits of being able to presume my players are always on.
Think about a game like Bungie's Destiny. Clearly it is being designed with an always-on mentality. I can only imagine that if you aren't online, you won't be experiencing what was intended and you won't be getting the most out of the game. This is a benefit of presuming that your players are always online, right? I don't see the benefit in turning that into an evil that we assume is only used for terrible things.
What about Journey? It was a beautiful experience that wouldn't have been the same without an online connection, right? I mean, in the future, if we design these experiences shouldn't we be able to give them a label? I would want my players to know before they bought my game that they would need an internet connection to experience it the way I intended. And I fear that the label itself is gaining this big, ugly reputation that will only hurt us later, as creatives.
You guys bring up some great points about limiting your market, spotty internet connections (I deal with this too), etc. It's not perfect. But I have to imagine that as a society we are trending towards more and more connectivity. And as we do, this type of thing is going to become more and more prevalent.
Some people will use it for giving their players fantastic new experiences, and some will use it for draconian DRM bullshit. But ultimately, I fear this attitude towards labeling it as "Evil" so quickly...
The fact is every feature Sony demoed during their unveiling needed a good internet connection too to work, so I wouldn't blame MS just yet.
Lets say I get off work and I want to play some "Shoot em Up 5000." If their servers are down for maintenance or my connection is bad I can't play online. Well, I really wanted to play with friends but I can deal with that annoyance. If the campaign required internet for some reason, now I'm quite annoyed but I can always play something else. I've got a pretty extensive collection of games. If suddenly I couldn't play any of my games from an entire library I had spent hundreds of dollars on, now...now I'm pissed.
I play WoW. I also play Diablo 3. I've had times I can't connect to servers and I've gotten annoyed, but it hasn't pissed me off completely because even though I can't play those, I can always play something else. I can forgo a game requiring that connection, but if my entire system was made to be the equivalent of a doorstop because of a connection issue, the no thanks. I'll pass.
Sony has already said it WONT require an always online internet connection.
There is a big difference from needing a good internet connection to run some of the online features well and being required to have a constant internet connection to do anything on your console.
Would they really do something that would stop a very large percentage of users from being able to do anything on their consoles?
being on a smallband connection for a few days now i can`t really appreciate the always on thing. I do get that it`s a good anti piracy measure for some time until it gets bypassed like any console security but don`t punish your customers who only want to play a singleplayer game to relax once in a while.
Also don`t try to cover it up as an experience, i don`t care about achievements in games and who gets to see what i did. the gaming experience itself should be the achievement and not that shitty little box saying i just completed a level, i could see that with my own eyes.
Yes they would. It's Microsoft - they've been designing new defections on iterations for decades.