No, I’m not looking at it wrong - I’m looking at it from the perspective of a casual gamer who has absolutely no idea what the issue, and is asking for clarification. That’s not “wrong”, it’s just ignorance. So enlighten me. Also, there’s a big difference between “want” and “care”.
This. As a general matter, I prefer that my computing devices have no greater autonomy than required for the task at hand. If I’m streaming video from Netflix, then it’s fair enough to require an Internet connection; the nature of the task demands it, and I’m happy to let my PC/console/whatever use that connection as the developers have seen fit. But there is nothing in the task of playing a single-player videogame that intrinsically demands an Internet connection; if all I want to do is play by myself, and I don’t want the latest patch, there is absolutely no reason this task should require, or even significantly benefit from, an Internet connection. And if that connection doesn’t benefit me, I see no reason to permit it.
Actually, I think it is more that not just wanting an always on device. You have to realize that if you are always on, data is going to be collected about how, what, where and what you have been doing. It is the same reason I try to avoid facebook. I like privacy.
I’m also finding i want to control the number of distractions in my life, an always on console is just another device that gets to wiggle it fingers into my limited attention with new DLC and the latest video from the latest band du jour.
First the device requires it “for licensing” and some nimrod decides they want to take advantage of it “because its already there.”
A couple of years ago, I believe, Playstation networks were shut down for over a month. No one could play multiplayer. That sucked.
Imagine how much it would have sucked if PSN was required to play single player. You come home after a long day at work and want to relax with some Saints Row that you bought, that you spent your money on, and you find you can’t play what you bought because a server is down, even though there is no reason whatsoever for that server to be necessary.
It’d be like not being able to drive a car you bought because Ford is having computer issues.
In your scenario, I think Sony would have been sued into oblivion. Or developed a way to squash the “always-on” requirement toot sweet.
What I’m trying to tell you is that your inquiry is backwards. You shouldn’t buy something based on “this doesn’t have any features that are bad for me”, but rather, based on “This device has all the features that are good for me.”
“Always on” adds nothing for the consumer. It’s basically a trap that makes you beholden to the people who own the other end of the connection.
So the question is: “Why would you submit to something like that when it offers you no benefits?” not “Why is this a problem?”
An informed consumer should try to look at things for the perspective of “What does this do for me?” “Why would I want this?” and “What does this mean?” not “Why should I care if this has X?”
Here’s someone who’s really pissed about XBox requiring an internet connection.
I work for PlayStation. We’re all really amused right now.
It’s unclear whether Microsoft can remove the always-on requirement at this point. Any games being developed for the new system have to be pretty far along by now. Some of them might be like SimCity – the always-on elements could be removed if they really wanted to. But I’m sure that some of the new games have the always-on feature so deeply integrated that they can’t yank it out without going back to the drawing board and redesign the whole thing from scratch.
I <3 Francis.
I sortof disagree with you; There’s nothing inherently evil about games that require always on connections. Some very popular titles require exactly this. There’s a little known property called “World of Warcraft” that apparently requires an always on internet connection and has managed to make a few bucks in spite of it.
The key is exactly what you said - they can’t be “like Simcity” where the “always on” is clearly tacked on. If the game is built in such a way that the connection requirement makes sense and offers a BENEFIT to the consumer no one is going to bat an eye. It’s when you start saying “Yeah. This game? That has no meaningful online features at all? It requires you to always be connected to the internet” that people start to wonder why they’re putting up with this BS. That said, those games are exactly the ones that are easiest to remove the always-on requirement from.
So I wouldn’t feel -too- smug about it. Heck, we don’t even necessarily know for sure that they’re doing this yet.
A boy can dream, can’t he?
Dream big, my friend, dream big.
From an article at the same site as that Francis video:
So it wouldn’t necessarily imply the consumer version would have the requirement. That seems somewhat plausible, although you’d think Microsoft would have said something about that by now, given the controversy.
I assume this thread is good for xbox stuff too, not much point to creating a separate thread.
Rumor is the new xbox is going to cost $500 or $300 with some sort of subscription contract. Also always online.
Interesting that they are making huge compromises by (as per rumors) cheap, super low power mobile phone parts as a processor yet it’s going to cost more than the 360’s launch price.
Seems like based on the rumors the PS4 is going to be the better machine, Microsoft is stepping on their own dick. I hope their xbox division loses them eleventy billion dollars, fuck them. Maybe they’ll remember at that point PCs are where they make their money.
Interesting spin that article puts on that last bit:
Compare that with a similar article on Ars Technica:
Apparently whoever ‘wins’ the console war in the previous generation is immediate doomed to hubris and really stupid decisions in the next one. x.x Well, Xbox, I enjoyed my time with the 360, but don’t expect to sell me the new one.
Uh…is it? I mean, I guess it is with Windows and Office, but it’s not like they’ve been neglecting those in favor of the Xbox… so er? (The 360 was fairly profitable for them, by my understanding)
Pretty sure the Xbox brand is still in the red actually. But it’s now (after a decade) positioned to print money.
I don’t think PC gaming has ever really meant much for them, but Windows and their business apps/services are pretty much 90% of Microsoft revenue (IIRC).
Microsoft is SO big, that it’s likely one doesn’t affect the other. They make their VAST money in OS Sales, followed by Office, probably followed by Enterprise licensing. Xbox may as well be a completely different organization.
I’m kinda chilling on the whole subject of console gaming. The only game that’s really gripped me lately is Bioshock Infinite. I got bored with Halo 4 about 4 hours in, and have no other desire to fire up any of the consoles…and Bioshock is available on the PC.
We bought my son a 10 year old version of SimCity 4 based on the lukewarm response to the latest edition. I think a lot of the old guard is busy consuming itself by looking busy.
PS4 Techy details here: Sony dives deep into the PS4’s hardware power, controller features at GDC | Ars Technica
Definitely; And this, together with what Kinthalis said, is why I’m confused by Beef’s comment about “remembering where they make their money”.
This whole thing is completely academic to me at this point - I never buy consoles anywhere near their release time. I didn’t get a PS2 until the 360 was already out. I didn’t get a 360 until the 2008 holiday season. PS3 came along a bit more than a year ago. I guess I bought my Dreamcast fairly near the release date, and look how that turned out. 