Jimquisition: Why An Always-On DRM Console Would Be Dumb Dumb Dumb

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

That was, remarkably, the best Jimquisition i've seen. Every point was spot on along with the evidence that Jim provided.

Also that ending, was extremely effective and epic overall. I've got to give Jim props for doing an outstanding job on his response at the end since the developers/publishers are acting that way with us right now. "Deal with it" is perhaps the worst attitude a company or heck, an employee can give towards a consumer.

In all my years, one moral I stand by is to treat people with respect because... it's not just who I am, but because eventually if I were to treat them poorly enough it'll surely bite me in the butt and I will never be able to regain their trust or respect again. Not everyone is forgiving and others will know how I was because people tend to notify others about particular people.

Oh and the response that guy gave about "well my electricity tends to go out" is a very poor excuse. Unlike my electricity, Microsoft and publishers have control over how our connections work, or how they do their business with selling our consoles/devices. They also know the results of their 'always online' not being up to par so it's proving how invalid that argument is.

Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?

Your Gaffer:
Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?

Lol well put. It's like the sky being blue, it's a forgone conclusion.

It seems Jim is just afraid of one of the possible futures for consoles as most other people on these forums.

Ppls wake up and smell the coffee, eventually the majority (if not all) of your electronic entertainment devices will be always on in one way or another and you really are being pissed with Microsoft for simply being the first to adopt a inevitability of the future in practice.

Its also criminal how Jim tends to only focus on one side of the proverbial coin in relation to issues he covers and said side is always aligned with his personal opinion.

Wheres his rant on the benefits of the modern digital paradigm and how much it has reduced the cost of sales at launch vs the loss of pre-owned gaming? (As it truly is one or the other, the industry cant sustain both).

Or a rant about the fact that consoles are used for ALOT more then gaming these days and that the audience for a device like the NEXT is infinitely bigger because of it and most of those function require a internet connection?

I would even go as far as to say hes slightly bigoted towards the subject.

Kael Arawn:

Your Gaffer:
Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?

Lol well put. It's like the sky being blue, it's a forgone conclusion.

It seems Jim is just afraid of one of the possible futures for consoles as most other people on these forums.

Ppls wake up and smell the coffee, eventually the majority (if not all) of your electronic entertainment devices will be always on in one way or another and you really are being pissed with Microsoft for simply being the first to adopt a inevitability of the future in practice.

I actually have to disagree with you here. You seem to assume that people are mad that there is supposedly going to an online requirement. I don't think that is the case. I think people are upset that it will have to ALWAYS be online.

Steam is online. I am almost always logged into Steam. BUT, if I want to I can go into offline mode. If I do it deliberately I never have to go back online unless I want to activate new products or install updates.

If I lose my internet connection unexpectedly I have 3 MONTHS to play my games before I have to connect again. Microsoft's next xbox will supposedly let you play for 3 MINUTES. That is pretty terrible and places a major inconvenience on a large portion of the next xbox's market.

You say everything will be online, I think you are correct there. I don't think you are necessarily right in your assumption that everything will have to online all the time. I think there will be enough push back that the most successful platforms, like Steam, will have offline modes that are more flexible for consumers.

Your Gaffer:

Kael Arawn:

Your Gaffer:
Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?

Lol well put. It's like the sky being blue, it's a forgone conclusion.

It seems Jim is just afraid of one of the possible futures for consoles as most other people on these forums.

Ppls wake up and smell the coffee, eventually the majority (if not all) of your electronic entertainment devices will be always on in one way or another and you really are being pissed with Microsoft for simply being the first to adopt a inevitability of the future in practice.

I actually have to disagree with you here. You seem to assume that people are mad that there is supposedly going to an online requirement. I don't think that is the case. I think people are upset that it will have to ALWAYS be online.

Steam is online. I am almost always logged into Steam. BUT, if I want to I can go into offline mode. If I do it deliberately I never have to go back online unless I want to activate new products or install updates.

If I lose my internet connection unexpectedly I have 3 MONTHS to play my games before I have to connect again. Microsoft's next xbox will supposedly let you play for 3 MINUTES. That is pretty terrible and places a major inconvenience on a large portion of the next xbox's market.

You say everything will be online, I think you are correct there. I don't think you are necessarily right in your assumption that everything will have to online all the time. I think there will be enough push back that the most successful platforms, like Steam, will have offline modes that are more flexible for consumers.

If we where its core market i would agree but i ardently believe where not, also there hasn't been any real announcement on how there offline game system will work (or if the NEXT will even have one).

In previous posts I compared what i presume Microsoft will do with what they have already done with windows 8 and that's have a system that requires internet connectivity to "initialize" a account and any content attached to it.

But windows 8 doesn't stop letting you listen to music if your net connection drops out so why would the NEXT?

I actually think the REAL application of the always online concept will be a system that automatically powers it self onto low powered mode and does a but load of stuff autonomously without the user agreeing (updates etc) via the net and automatically reconnects if disconnected etc JUST LIKE WINDOWS 8 (in till you turn of all the crap that is).

But none of this changes the fact that EVERYONE is commenting from the point of view about how it will work for them personally as opposed to a industry concept and that's what it is.

I live in a small country town in Australia and the best I can do internet wise here is a 8 meg ADSL 1 connection but that doesn't stop people in my town using there consoles as NETFLIX machines and they don't complain to Microsoft when the nets down and they cant watch media they simply accept that it is.

And in Australia we need to run our xboxs through a proxy to even get netfix, whih just shows how dedicated some users are to using there xbox for stuff besides gaming.

I also wont be buying one as its not viable for me as a product as it doesn't match my needs from a entertainment device (my pc does though) but simply because i don't see it as viable for me doesn't mean i cant understand that there's a market for the thing and the benefits it offers to Microsoft and the industry.

EDIT

And even if it does require a always online net connection to play and stops you from playing when the connection not there it would only be a issue to a person who owns it and if the concept annoys anyone so much that there not willing to buy it then there not a portion of the NEXT boxs potential market share and thusly it doesn't place a inconvenience on them.

I'm sorry, but has anyone else ever questioned the significance of the images of shrimps?
I've seen most episodes of the Jimquisition, and had kind of accepted the random shrimps until now- now I really need to know why they're there.

Azriel Nightshade:
Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

Well, primarily because Steam is NOT "Always on". In fact, after installing a game and starting it for the first time, you never need to be online with Steam again.
The only things you need to be online for with Steam are:
1) Downloading and installing games/updates (obviously)
2) Using of Steamcloud (optional anyway) and Achievements (which are optional, too)
3) To play Multiplayer games using Steamworks (in which case you need to be online, anyway even if Steam wouldn't be part of the whole deal)

Bindal:

Azriel Nightshade:
Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

Well, primarily because Steam is NOT "Always on". In fact, after installing a game and starting it for the first time, you never need to be online with Steam again.
The only things you need to be online for with Steam are:
1) Downloading and installing games/updates (obviously)
2) Using of Steamcloud (optional anyway) and Achievements (which are optional, too)
3) To play Multiplayer games using Steamworks (in which case you need to be online, anyway even if Steam wouldn't be part of the whole deal)

Bingo! But to start the process of even activating a game you need to have steam connected to the net to begin with and that's completely different to how the xbox 360 works so if Microsoft where to launch the NEXT with a account system that requires all games to be activated via a online account system and then offers offline play just like steam wouldn't it be easier to explain it to the generalized public as always on as its such a huge paradigm change after what most users got used to with the XBOX 360 and it does indeed require a internet connection at least once during the activation process?

That was glorious. "Deal With it." What a beautiful phrase, I imagine we will enjoy saying it to them when the time comes more than we should.

Why stop here M$?
Get together with Sony and make PlayBox
Always on-line+Console locked discs+Useless gimmicks+Questionable software+Crappy hardware+Price it at $1k=perfect console
That would be instant hit.

blackrave:
Why stop here M$?
Get together with Sony and make PlayBox
Always on-line+Console locked discs+Useless gimmicks+Questionable software+Crappy hardware+Price it at $1k=perfect console
That would be instant hit.

I prefer X-Station myself :)

And the sad thing is it would probably sell like hotcakes even if they did that.

Dear Jim: I sincerely hope that there is a second part to this because (even after this good vid) there is still so much that was left out.

* Hackers can shut down Microsoft servers and delete/steal player's data. Like when the PSN network got hacked, only way, way worse.
* Some parents are so dumb they can't install a NES, and now they have to plug in and log in. This is another hurdle that will shun away new users.
* Microsoft will constantly be spying on you.
* No really. Microsoft will be literally watching you while you play. Rumors say that in addition to Always Online the Kinect must be able to watch you play. And lets say you have a few friends over to watch a movie on your Next Xbox. The Kinect will turn the console off unless you pay it extra money for the new viewers.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/139706-microsofts-new-kinect-patent-goes-big-brother-will-spy-on-you-for-the-mpaa

Clap clap clap* bravo Jim.

The potential conflict with Gamestop had not occurred to me. It probably won't come to this but it would be a fairly interesting scenario if Gamestop threatened to not shelve any Durango games for the duration of the cycle if Microsoft is set on always-online.

As with others, if these rumors turn out to be true and if the always online requirement isn't scrapped I will be making the transition to PC gaming for the next cycle. I've always been a console gamer but there are just too many advantages to PC gaming not limited to more frequent patches and fixes than the ones that get past Microsoft approval and the much cheaper game opportunities available through Steam.

The things that consoles have going for them, namely the lack of a need to worry if your hardware is powerful enough to run a game and familiarity with a controller, have been barely enough to keep me in the fold - if the Durango launches with always-online, it will put me over the edge to PC gaming. Steam is already cheaper even with the presence of the used game market for physical discs - image the price differential if list price is the only price.

OMG! i declare this the best jimquisition ending ever :D!

Adon Cabre:

harryhenry:

Adon Cabre:

so basically, "MOVE TO A BETTER PLACE, NEANDERTALS, BECAUSE THE FUTURE, BITCH!" is what you're saying?
edit: also, yosemite has a giant supervolcano underneath, and in san fransisco, a giant earthquake can destroy an entire city, and that earthquake has a 99% chane oof happening within the next 20 years.

That's some funny stuff! but basically... yeah. Spot on. Just move, or wait until Australia catches up. I, however, have no idea how anything goes on down there. Oh well.

Holy crap, Adam Orth has an account on the Escapist?

OT: Honestly, that last 45 seconds or so was magnificent. So well done; I loved it~

I am a gamer, I love my games.
But I am fickle and have other things I could do.
If I want to play a game and the server keeps fucking up I will get frustrated and keep trying.
If the server is persistently unreliable I'll find something else to do.

There are 4 people in the house, 3 gamers, 3 gaming PCs, 2 Xboxes, 3 Playstations, a metric ton of movies and tv series, mates living just down the road and the best bar in town 15 minutes away.
I have a girlfriend in stockholm and 2 kids in Göteborg.

Your server reliability has to be easy enough to distract me from that.
Peggle was genius, so was Portal because they were easy to grab when I have some time to play.
I like games like Skyrim and Fallout because I am alone in my world anytime I want.
If you take away my immersion you will lose me as a customer and I'm sure I am not a unique snowflake in this.

Tehe, that one was almost to easy looking at the current circumstances and that you kinda already dealt with the topic in your episode about SimShitty.

However, at the end of SimShitty you suggested we should stay calm... so, how about a good riot now? C'mon, i wanna go all wild in the streets raging about the (game)industry and seize the upper floors of game-publishers and maybe some studios too, kicking out the greedy marketing and whatnot head-figures. Eh, eh, how about it?
Let's bring em the next game-console "crisis" and then we can all stand before them, shades on and say "deal with it"!
Sounds good i think.

I've said it many times before, but I think one more time is good.

Your servers have a tendency to crash and the Internet connection is still too unreliable to make an always-on console more of a benefit than a liability to me.

I guess I won't be buying your new Xbox.

#dealwithit

ThunderCavalier:
I've said it many times before, but I think one more time is good.

Your servers have a tendency to crash and the Internet connection is still too unreliable to make an always-on console more of a benefit than a liability to me.

I guess I won't be buying your new Xbox.

#dealwithit

I understand your post is in the negative but I want to address one potential grey area in your post that people may not get. The point where you say that because two things aren't reliable it is a liability instead of a benefit. This implies that if fixed, they can eventually become a benefit. Always on will NEVER be a benefit to you. Why would it be? Games that are online when they're supposed to be but can be played offline when not necessary are what benefit you. Can you tell me a reason why being unable to play your system offline would help you EVEN if their servers are reliable and the internet connection is perfect? Don't get me wrong, the ability to connect with friends like what the ps4 allows is nice, but being unable to go offline at all only hurts us. It's the inability part. There's no reason why we wouldn't want to be able to do both where possible.

As I said in another thread, 720 may have always online but 1080 will try to push for a constant stream of blood and stool data. Hopefully we'll draw a line with the system that demands a rectal probe be inserted during gameplay. I don't know if I'm being too subtle here but what I'm saying is that they're being invasive. The funny (stupid) thing is, I don't know that biometric data is entirely off the table in the future if they could do it affordably. Not the stuff I jokingly said, but finger print scanners, heart beat trackers that learn patterns of the typical user, face tracking and recognition (already available with the kinect). Imagine a day where systems could potentially prevent two people in the same house from playing the same copy of the game without paying some bogus fee. While hopefully unlikely, I'm not too sure they wouldn't try to do it at some point. Interestingly enough, this stuff would be great to discourage theft of your machine.

This is only their attempt at DRM and perhaps a few other things. This is not a decision for a console to make. This is a decision for individual IPs to make and for consumers to be able to decide not to buy them because of it. This is a foolish and invasive method that assumes a criminal of all of us. The thing about a console forcing it is that I could not illegally download the 720, I had to obtain the physical machine to use it. So while I might cringe at software for doing it, I understand their desire to DRM it with always online even though I (and I'm sure a few other gamers) won't buy their stuff whenever we find out that they've done that. But it makes no sense to DRM hardware. Not unless you specifically want to piss off consumers and treat them like thieves. I'll also point out that piracy of console games is a heck of a lot harder than pc's and pc's will always work offline even if the software doesn't. So if their goal is to make us go to their competitors then so be it.

Wishful thinking. The industry has already managed to do this on PC and so they will succeed on the consoles aswell.

Not all PC games have always-online DRM either and it all started with just a couple AAA games like ME and Spore. None of the early boycots gained much support and PC gamers are supposed to be the fanatical and savvy crowd. M$ and Sony can follow exactly the same path on consoles, as this slow boil has succeeded before.

So you make a new xbox and you add just a chip and some firmware to facilitate DRM schemes and then you gradually, over the course of several years, lock down more new releases with always-online DRM.
Us old hands will still complain, but the new blood won't see it and that's all that matters. They already bought the console; the first generation of games worked fine and now they want the latest, top rated AAA games for their consoles even if it's a hassle to make it work.

veloper:
Wishful thinking. The industry has already managed to do this on PC and so they will succeed on the consoles aswell.

Not all PC games have always-online DRM either and it all started with just a couple AAA games like ME and Spore. None of the early boycots gained much support and PC gamers are supposed to be the fanatical and savvy crowd. M$ and Sony can follow exactly the same path on consoles, as this slow boil has succeeded before.

So you make a new xbox and you add just a chip and some firmware to facilitate DRM schemes and then you gradually, over the course of several years, lock down more new releases with always-online DRM.
Us old hands will still complain, but the new blood won't see it and that's all that matters. They already bought the console; the first generation of games worked fine and now they want the latest, top rated AAA games for their consoles even if it's a hassle to make it work.

Software-level always on DRM is completely different from hardware-level always on DRM. Think of all the complaints Jim has about just software-level always on DRM and then multiply it by EVERY game. Imagine being unable to play a movie because your internet is down.

One makes us unable to play certain games offline, the other renders a machine we've purchased unusable offline. PC's cannot be made to do that unless some vital hardware component of PCs is suddenly monopolized and forced to require it. Unlikely since any competing hardware company that refuses to do it would suddenly get all the business.

Hot damn, Jim! You were seriously channeling some badass mojo towards the end there. Very nice.

Azriel Nightshade:
Why is always on-line for consols detrimental, but always online via Steam exempt from scrutiny?

I'm not asking this to be contrarian or witty, I'm generally curious. Mainly because the only two PC games I play are WoW and LoL, both on an 5 year old iMac. So I'm a bit out of the loop.

While you do need an online connection to obtain your games on Steam, it will still function if you lose that connection, that's the difference.

The more people keep talking about DRM on the next xbox, the more I don't want it and the more I'm willing to pay in full for a ps4.

Me likey. Australian internet sucks. While the current government is implementing a high speed broadband network, if they lose the upcoming election it get put on the backburner. The majority of aussies wouldn't be able to play consoles if they were always online.

Kael Arawn:

Your Gaffer:
Jim is against an always online console? Who wouldda thunk it?

Lol well put. It's like the sky being blue, it's a forgone conclusion.

It seems Jim is just afraid of one of the possible futures for consoles as most other people on these forums.

Ppls wake up and smell the coffee, eventually the majority (if not all) of your electronic entertainment devices will be always on in one way or another and you really are being pissed with Microsoft for simply being the first to adopt a inevitability of the future in practice.

It is possible, almost certain really, that eventually all our electronics will essentially always be online. But that day is not yet here. The required infrastructure has not been created. Just because it will eventually be true does not make it a good assumption for the now.

Besides, just because it is likely that in the future all devices will be connected to the internet does not mean they will all require a constant connection. Microsoft is not an early adopter of a inevitable future practice. They are creating an artificial barrier to the use of their product based on the assumption that right now everyone has access to a stable internet connection, an assumption that we know to be false.

Its also criminal how Jim tends to only focus on one side of the proverbial coin in relation to issues he covers and said side is always aligned with his personal opinion.

Wheres his rant on the benefits of the modern digital paradigm and how much it has reduced the cost of sales at launch vs the loss of pre-owned gaming? (As it truly is one or the other, the industry cant sustain both).

Are you saying that digital sales have reduced the cost of launch day games and therefore we just don't need used games? Because that one is just wrong. Digital copies cost the same as physical copies. There has been no reduction in price at launch. In fact, Jim did an episode dedicated to this fact and how stupid it is for everyone involved: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5684-Dont-Charge-Retail-Prices-For-Digital-Games

Besides, there is no evidence that the game industry cannot sustain both. You are just pulling that assumption out of your ass to support a point you have no actual evidence for.

Or a rant about the fact that consoles are used for ALOT more then gaming these days and that the audience for a device like the NEXT is infinitely bigger because of it and most of those function require a internet connection?

But the fact remains that the core function of the console, playing games, does not require a connection. My tablet does a lot of cool things if it is connected to the internet. But that does not mean that when I am on the subway and have no connection it should kick me off of Angry Birds. Sure, streaming a video requires a connection but that does not mean that playing Mass Effect should too.

I would even go as far as to say hes slightly bigoted towards the subject.

Jim offered a large and detailed list of reasons why always online for the next Xbox is a bad idea from the view of both the consumer and the producer. You have offered nothing but vague assertions and questionable assumptions. A bigot is one who is intolerantly devoted to their opinion and ignores sound evidence and reasoning against their opinion. Given the circumstances, I am going to recommend against you calling others bigoted.

I think the problem is most of these executives likely either get their information from "focus" groups that mainly consist of well to do kids or parents of said kids who don't realize, or care, that high speed internet connections are not the norm. Or the groups consist of non-technical people who don't realize that they might not meet those bandwidth requirements because they think think any internet connection is enough. So when asked if they would be fine with an always online system they just say "Sure sounds fine"

Also some of the links provided in other post that go to sites defending the "Always Online" end up showing just how ignorant the proponents of this are. One link had a guy saying every FPS you've ever played was always online. That is a huge face palm right there because I've played FPS for years and rarely do I play them multiplayer because I lack a good connection. It's hard to hit something when one minute it's right in front of you and the next it's behind you.

On the topic of Steam it seems people forget their history and are subjected to large amounts of disinformation. I've seen lots of people who argue the always online DRM is fine try to point at Steam and say that it is the same thing. Then claim that since so many people accept Steam they will accept these other DRM setups.

Besides being a complete misrepresentation of how Steam works, as others in this thread have already pointed out, it also fails to take into account Steams origins. Steam was not rolled out as a DRM service, it slowly migrated into that role over time.

Steam was originally rolled out as a match making service for Valve games, with auto-updating (because when new patches rolled out people had issues with not everyone having the same version), instant messaging service, and anti-cheating measure. Plus it was completely OPTIONAL on their games, so if you didn't want it you didn't have to use it.

It's only over time as they added more features and made deals with other developers and publishers to become a digital distribution network for other companies as well that it has shifted to a requirement. And likely that is more of a contractual obligation as the other publishers likely want proof users own the games before allowing them to download them.

But even then the most important fact remains that steam allows you to play offline. It's more like a verify on install connection requirement, similar to Windows OS does these days. And needing to reconnect for a quick verification every few weeks is easy enough to do.

The other thing with steam though is they have ridiculous sales all the time. I've got over 50 games on steam, most of which I bought for 50-75% off. This includes triple A titles which I have picked up for $10-$20 along with lots of smaller indy games for around $5.

Best time for good deals is during Summer and Winter sales when most publishers have the vast majority of their catalogs at 33-50% off. Last holiday sale I got 5 games for a total of about $25.

If I bought all those games from normal retail stores I'd easily have paid well over $1k. But as is I've probably only paid $300-$400 for all those games. And that's over the course of the last 4 years since I started heavily using Steam. Steam is often cheaper then the "used" games at Gamestop during their sales.

Give 'em hell, Jim!

I want to so those publishers that care so little about the experience of paying customers crumble and fail. There will always be tools and people to make games, they don't NEED to be owned by publishers.

Let the industry crash! We will watch it burn! BURRRRN!
image

Adam Jensen:

superline51:
If the console industry does go tits up, I'm not entirely sure what I will do, considering I DESPISE gaming with M&K.

Use your controller?

Maerx:
MS = MacroSuicide.

Let's hope this is just rumors.

Then why don't they just come out and say so? Everything about "Durango" is bad news for everyone. They could use some plus points right now.

This is what I don't get, Microsoft easily could avoid any bad press by just having a "Playstation meeting" style press conference and just clear the air so all of the bad news surrounding the rumored system.

Great work Jim. Maybe you should box up your final "Deal With It" ready for replay when the big three eventually fall in a screaming heap through their own negligence of their fan base.

Sorry, ages old comment, but I couldn't ignore it... I switched round the paragraphs because the second paragraph buggers up your first paragraph,(it lingers more than the first, mostly because of it's irrelevance.) so I'll get that out of the way first. anyway:

QUINTIX:
From my bigoted perspective, this vitriol filled reaction to perceived threats (especially anti-feminist ones) is to be expected from our latchkey generation with many of its "young men" staying teenage boys into perpetuity.

Wow, wow, wow... This is not about gender issues or the immaturity of men. This is a different human issue: commerce, trade and business.

QUINTIX:
I'll disagree with Kevin Dent here too https://kevin-dent.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/5/in-the-world-2929
however, I will agree with him & Manveer Heir that the Orth is not deserving the bile he's receiving.

Orth is more or less getting the response you can expect when he tells established or potential customers that if they "don't like it? Deal with it!". It's insulting to openly say that. Never mind suggest it.

However, funny thing about contemporary commerce is that you, I or anyone else can just respond: "We don't have to..."

Hardly an immature reaction, just a human one.

First of all, excellent episode, Jim. In my opinion, this is among your best, and thank god for you.

Now, to the issue:

As the owner of an IT business, I've dealt with many people who are unable to get their internet working properly in their home. I've seen all kinds of causes; hardware malfunctions, incorrect network configurations, bad cabling, and pretty much everything else that CAN go wrong with basic home networks. In most cases, these issues are fairly minute to the trained eye; (DHCP is the duct tape of the networking world) but far beyond the scope of knowledge that the average internet user would obtain. The other thing is, while I work, I observe what people are doing. And in about 80% of the houses that I visit that don't have a current internet connection, SOMEONE IS PLAYING A GAME on a current-gen console.

So, from my point of view, gamers not only enjoy games WHEN the internet is down, gamers enjoy games BECAUSE the internet is down. Not to mention the fallibility of the US's infrastructure (ranked 33 in the world at the time of this post http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/ ) and shitty server programming paradigms. This example may be purely anecdotal, but I feel that my experience represents a majority of gamers out there.

Lightknight:

veloper:
Wishful thinking. The industry has already managed to do this on PC and so they will succeed on the consoles aswell.

Not all PC games have always-online DRM either and it all started with just a couple AAA games like ME and Spore. None of the early boycots gained much support and PC gamers are supposed to be the fanatical and savvy crowd. M$ and Sony can follow exactly the same path on consoles, as this slow boil has succeeded before.

So you make a new xbox and you add just a chip and some firmware to facilitate DRM schemes and then you gradually, over the course of several years, lock down more new releases with always-online DRM.
Us old hands will still complain, but the new blood won't see it and that's all that matters. They already bought the console; the first generation of games worked fine and now they want the latest, top rated AAA games for their consoles even if it's a hassle to make it work.

Software-level always on DRM is completely different from hardware-level always on DRM. Think of all the complaints Jim has about just software-level always on DRM and then multiply it by EVERY game. Imagine being unable to play a movie because your internet is down.

One makes us unable to play certain games offline, the other renders a machine we've purchased unusable offline. PC's cannot be made to do that unless some vital hardware component of PCs is suddenly monopolized and forced to require it. Unlikely since any competing hardware company that refuses to do it would suddenly get all the business.

The new blood won't know about the difference and moreover I doubt they will care. M$ isn't stupid. They won't lose their biggest audience and they will have done their research. Escapists may like to think so, but our minority opinions make no difference. We don't matter; we're 70% PC gamers here and our console gamers are atypical.
My bet is that M$ will prepare the hardware, but won't go full nazi immediately, but rather gradually. Whatever they do, M$ will succeed. Time and time again our collective willingness to make a stand for consumer rights has proven to be very low.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here