When you read the comments of articles dealing with the Xbox 720/Durango’s “always on” rumors, you find a lot of vitriol, regardless of people’s position. Most (over 80 percent, according to reports) are enraged, but you still get a very vocal minority of people questioning what the big deal of always on is, citing Steam and other devices or systems that already implement the system. Cue embittered forum fighting that will probably involve awful language, pointless name calling, and will probably invoke Obama somehow.
When things devolve into this, it’s never good – irrational tantrums never succeed in getting the point across. However, I’d like to take a moment to calmly lay out why proponents who claim to “not see the big deal” about “always on” are, in fact, of the wrong opinion. There’s a reason this idea would spell sales suicide for Microsoft. Here’s “the big deal:”
People like playing their games offline: Yeah, it’s wonderful that the online gaming community continues to grow, especially in North America. Just because I don’t really care about it, doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s a positive thing for the industry. And if you enjoy it, more power to you. But the reality is, there’s a huge section of the gaming audience that doesn’t want to HAVE to be plugged in all the time. I like gaming for a lot of different reasons, but one of the most significant ones is that the medium offers me some time to recharge and reset on my own. I don’t want to always have to be connected to enjoy my medium. We’re not forced to watch movies or read books in groups – it’s an option that’s there if we so choose. I understand the gaming medium of entertainment is a little different, but the idea is still there.
Online isn’t always an option: According to early reports, the Xbox can go three minutes without a connection before shutting down.
- If you live in a well connected area with consistent internet, you’re in good shape. If you’re in an area with shoddy connection, you won’t be able to play.
- If you want to play your Xbox remotely (like some people do in their cars or SUVs) you won’t be able to play.
- If you travel a lot (like I do), you will need to secure a solid connection everywhere you go, or you won’t be able to play.
- Even in good areas, if your connection goes down for whatever reason (which happens in our apartment despite having the best connection deals in town), you will lose your game session.
Now, here’s my biggest issue with the people who claim to not see what the big deal is: good for you. Seriously, that’s wonderful. It must be nice, and truth be told, I’m jealous. But just because you don’t have to deal with it in your unique situation doesn’t mean Microsoft should be creating their business plan around you. Saying that you don’t care and you’re an advocate simply because you’re unaffected is probably one of the most frustrating things someone can do. That’s like saying you don’t mind it if someone nukes Florida because you live in California. Yeah, you won’t be affected at all, but I wouldn’t say that decision is best for the people in Florida.
Have we learned nothing from Sim City and Diablo 3 DRM. Seriously?
And let’s not forget: The competitors aren’t doing it. The connection breakdowns, like when the PlayStation Network went down for weeks at a time. Hackers.
Here’s the reality – technologically, the country is not ready for “always on.” Internet is not consistent enough, and not consistent in enough places, to justify this decision. Trying to combat piracy is great, but the funny thing about piracy is that THE PIRATES ARE STILL GOING TO PIRATE. We know this. So is the slight decrease in piracy worth alienating your entire audience?
To close this argument, I think it’s this simple – according to Microsoft, I fall into their “core gamer” audience. I purchase numerous games a year, brand new. I adopt hardware pretty early on, if not day one. I buy well-done DLC. Xbox is my most preferred console, by a pretty wide margin. And if the rumors are true, and the Durango/Xbox 720/whatever is “always online,” Microsoft will lose me as a customer in exchange for Sony’s PS4. That’s not another indictment against “always online,” which there are plenty of articles about. I’m simply illustrating my position so that people who “don’t care” can maybe understand what has everyone else so upset.
Gray Areas 
One word. Entitlement.
I really hate what politics has done to that word – can you clarify? Do you mean people are entitled to play games when and how they’d like, or that people have a false sense of entitlement and developers should have more control?
I actually had that same question….
Take Planetside2 for instance. Players complain about the downtime. It sometimes takes 4 hours. It is a free to play game. Whatever money you spend is for priority access or for station cash that need not be refundable. I just wish more people on the official forums appreciate the kind of mathematics that are involved with having nearly 2000 players all on the same map.
Are you relating that to the next console by saying that people shouldn’t be complaining about “always online” because of such things like logistics?
Sounds like you are comparing apples and oranges, as they say. In this case there is no priority access, only access. Microsoft could be alienating a lot of customers with this move, which I can imagine won’t play too favorably for any developers they hope to get exclusive rights with. I know I really like to bring my old N64 with me on vacations to play Dr. Mario 64 (the only 4-player entry in the series) with my family in my hotel room, something that would be impossible with this kind of setup.
Actually I just reread your post, I think I misunderstood a bit.
Which part?
Exactly, which is why I think I’m confused on this, haha. Yes, it’s frustrating when people bitch and moan about services that they are getting for free, and are, in essence, a privilege. It’s another thing entirely when you have paid for that service, and something is dictating your right to access that service. It’s not something I think will fly, which is why, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I believe there is no way Microsoft would do this.
Doh – Sorry Shaun, I’m on your side on this one. The order of the comments is kinda screwing with my head a bit, I was responding to czuukwaterson.
Haha, gotcha 🙂
Though to be perfectly honest, I have no clue about the details of how Microsoft is planning on executing this, and it could all be relatively seamless.
On a side note, could you imagine having to pay for Internet access on an airplane in order to play your 3DS? I shudder to think this is the future.
the sad thing is, I think it totally could be, except for the fact that I hope consumer demand would shoot it dead.
My Internet connection goes down if I look at my router wrong, if my aunt uses the telephone for longer than three minutes, if there’s wind, if there’s rain, if there’s clouds… so I completely understand the outrage at these rumors. I wouldn’t buy a 720 anyway, but if these are true, it would just cement my feelings about it. Very well-written article.
Thanks! That’s what I’m saying – I’m sure there’s a good amount of people where this isn’t a concern, but there’s a ton others who would be completely alienated by it.
Is Alright for people who have fast internet connection but what about people who do not?
I’m gonna come out and admit I’m biased against Microsoft and have no plans whatsoever to give them any of my money. I worked at GameStop for too long and saw too many poorly manufactured 360s get returned to award a company like that any longer. With that being said, I hope they learn their lesson from SimCity and Diablo 3 and don’t require the player to always be online. Most of the reasons have already been stated. But I’d like to add the first day frustration of online games (Diablo 3 *cough*) and how the servers would be down or there’d be errors when you just wanted to play a single player game. FML.