Ubisoft CEO Thinks Gamers Are Ready For Always-On Consoles
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Always-on will never be acceptable to consumers because we don't live in a magical perfect world where it can always be on. Just do what Steam does. I can play my games when my connection down. I don't know the time frame it gives or how exactly it works, but I think Steam just makes you check-in from time to time.
I feel like the 'always on' saga is mirroring the 'paywall' issue that newspapers ran into a little while ago. Major newspapers were offering their content online for free but then realized that this was negatively impacting their sales so they attempted to implement paywalls to view online content. When they did that many people jumped over to the smaller independent news websites that didn't require payment rather than deal with the money grab from the industry bigwigs.
Similarly now, big game publishers are making a grab for more control but increasingly indies and smaller publishers are nipping at their market as people get fed up. All that remains to be seen is whether enough people are willing to give up their control over their games to get the AAA titles or whether Microsoft and others will be left wondering where the people went.
Similarly now, big game publishers are making a grab for more control but increasingly indies and smaller publishers are nipping at their market as people get fed up. All that remains to be seen is whether enough people are willing to give up their control over their games to get the AAA titles or whether Microsoft and others will be left wondering where the people went.
If the industry thinks that what we want are always-on consoles, then the industry is in for a big surprise.
Come on, guys. Try us. You'll be shocked at the shit I won't buy. I can not buy all day, just try me.
Come on, guys. Try us. You'll be shocked at the shit I won't buy. I can not buy all day, just try me.
Andy Chalk said:
I'm sorry...am I missing something here? What benefit does an always-online connection give to the consumer? How does an always online connection help give 'extra content and online services'? Why can't these be provided via the current system where the consumer can choose to be online or not?
As far as I'm seeing the requirement for being always online confers no benefits to the consumer, only to the publishers and games comapanies.
Oh, just up and die already AAA publishers. Die so that the talented designers you enslave can split off into smaller, awesome studios, the loyal consumers get to keep their rights, and the executives can go back to whatever elderitch pit that they were spawned in.
"And I agree, these services need to provide clear benefits"
BUT THEY DON'T!
There are no benefits to always online that you cannot also receive with an optional online mode. None. And there are many, many drawbacks: Artificial lifespan of games, increases costs of developers maintaining servers that you can be damned sure will be passed down to the customers, inability to play games when the connection drops, inability to play games when the servers of the console/ game servers become overloaded which they most certainly will on certain big game releases.
Always online provides a host of issues and no benefits. We are not ready for Always On and we will never be, unless you also make lobotomies a requirement for your consoles, so stop faffing about with DRM and make your games Ubisoft, and if I like the look of them, then I might give you some money.
BUT THEY DON'T!
There are no benefits to always online that you cannot also receive with an optional online mode. None. And there are many, many drawbacks: Artificial lifespan of games, increases costs of developers maintaining servers that you can be damned sure will be passed down to the customers, inability to play games when the connection drops, inability to play games when the servers of the console/ game servers become overloaded which they most certainly will on certain big game releases.
Always online provides a host of issues and no benefits. We are not ready for Always On and we will never be, unless you also make lobotomies a requirement for your consoles, so stop faffing about with DRM and make your games Ubisoft, and if I like the look of them, then I might give you some money.
They're such little pranksters, aren't they? Let me pinch their cheeks and tell them to get ready for their afternoon nap.
Oh, and if Ubisoft makes their games always-on this is probably gonna be the last AC game I ever bought. I don't like them enough to put up with that bullshit. Besides, why does each company discussing this issue completely ignore such things as "Bad internet connection" or "Player independence"?
Oh, and if Ubisoft makes their games always-on this is probably gonna be the last AC game I ever bought. I don't like them enough to put up with that bullshit. Besides, why does each company discussing this issue completely ignore such things as "Bad internet connection" or "Player independence"?
He seems to be fond of mentioning that we will enjoy the benefits of always online, without actually stating what these benefits are, so please, ubisoft, please tell us what the benefits of over 60 million users connecting to a limited number of servers are? It's not even a case of "what if I live in a area with a bad connection", because even when I can connect to the internet, the servers will be down, this is what happened with Diablo III and SimCity, and this is what will happen with the next xbox, but infinitely worse.
Ubisoft, look out a window, will you? You seem to be under the impression that a monsoon is just a spring shower.
*wild applause*
GOOD JOB, SIR!
*Standing Ovation*
You may have single-handedly SAVED VIDEO GAMES!
GOOD JOB, SIR!
*Standing Ovation*
You may have single-handedly SAVED VIDEO GAMES!
Fuck it, I'm ready for another games industry crash. Tens of thousands will lose their jobs and it will be horrible, but I think it needs to happen.
I don't get why they don't understand the difference between most of us being always online, and REQUIRING to be always online. A tablet or smartphone in the home is likely almost always "online" and connected to your wireless if you have it. However, it works fucking fine if your internet goes down, or you're on a plane, or it disconnects from the wireless. It can still play the games on it, it can still play the music on it, it can still play the loaded videos.
No one cares that we have to be online to use the virtual store, what we care about is that both our end and your end has to be working to use the goddamn console at all. If the rumors are true, you literally cannot do anything on the nextbox without an internet connection. Even Steam, for as shit as it's offline mode can be, works a lot better than that.
I don't get why they don't understand the difference between most of us being always online, and REQUIRING to be always online. A tablet or smartphone in the home is likely almost always "online" and connected to your wireless if you have it. However, it works fucking fine if your internet goes down, or you're on a plane, or it disconnects from the wireless. It can still play the games on it, it can still play the music on it, it can still play the loaded videos.
No one cares that we have to be online to use the virtual store, what we care about is that both our end and your end has to be working to use the goddamn console at all. If the rumors are true, you literally cannot do anything on the nextbox without an internet connection. Even Steam, for as shit as it's offline mode can be, works a lot better than that.
This is what I came to say, always online should never happen even if we get the infrastructure to support it because there is absolutley NO benefit to not having an offline modeHero in a half shell said:
Hiya all, a new poster here...
I have been following the "always on" debate on here and a few other sites for a while now. While I am personally against it, I do get it from a company's point of view, meaning an means to increase revenue. Not saying that it is the best way of doing it mind you. I would like to come at this from another direction though, from a security POV.
Last week another tech news site posted an article on how easy it was to actually set up a botnet. It is really, really easy to do and not that expensive. Take into account the article on The Excapist I read today about AVG talking about how most <90% of hacks contain malware and the fact that, what the heck, most of us have tired this at one, or more times, and suddenly the always on thing looks particulately unappetising to me. I think Mallet appreciates this with his statement,"...when players don't have to worry ..." statement.
Thing is, always on is the wrong idea at the wrong time for so many different reasons. It just does not make any sense from a consumer POV to me why I would sign up for any service or game that requires it.
Anyway just my 2cents...
Cheers!
I have been following the "always on" debate on here and a few other sites for a while now. While I am personally against it, I do get it from a company's point of view, meaning an means to increase revenue. Not saying that it is the best way of doing it mind you. I would like to come at this from another direction though, from a security POV.
Last week another tech news site posted an article on how easy it was to actually set up a botnet. It is really, really easy to do and not that expensive. Take into account the article on The Excapist I read today about AVG talking about how most <90% of hacks contain malware and the fact that, what the heck, most of us have tired this at one, or more times, and suddenly the always on thing looks particulately unappetising to me. I think Mallet appreciates this with his statement,"...when players don't have to worry ..." statement.
Thing is, always on is the wrong idea at the wrong time for so many different reasons. It just does not make any sense from a consumer POV to me why I would sign up for any service or game that requires it.
Anyway just my 2cents...
Cheers!
What in the hell is it with game developers and game publishers? Are they just idiots and disconnected from reality? There is a BIG difference between having an online device that is still capable of operating offline (which is exactly how all these "always online" devices they like to site operate) and a device that is still capable of operation, by all the laws of physics, when offline but is forced to not do so for artificial reasons. I can still use my smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc. even when there is no internet connection because there are many operations which do not require an internet connection for the basic operation of entering, processing, or storing data. My smartphone and tablet can STILL PLAY the games even when there is no internet connection. This is completely different from a device that simply ceases to function entirely because it can't connect to some arbitrary server, even when the operations for it don't require use of the server.
If I recall, Adam Orth tried to make the claim that the always-online requirement is analogous to having to plug a vacuum-cleaner into a wall socket. Naturally, everyone saw the error in this logic. Electricity is a physically required source of energy in order for the vacuum-cleaner to perform useful work in running its motor to move air in sufficient volume per time and rotate the brushes against friction such to perform the operation of cleaning by the intake of air. A game console does not physically require an internet connection in order to perform useful work (yes, calculations require work), and, unless it is online-multiplayer only, the game does not require an online connection; even if the game is online-multiplayer only, it does not necessarily require that there be a server as an intermediary to connect between players and manage the game. Plenty of games operate just fine with a peer-to-peer type connection. For this reason, the always-online requirement is simply an unreasonable restriction that only serves to provide inconvenience to the user and questionable anti-piracy benefit to the manufacturer or game producer.
Also, because internet access and stability is not homogeneous and isotropic, there is the danger that any company selling a device that has an always-online requirement for operation will be significantly cutting their market presence. Further, the same company will be opening itself to substantial, overwhelming competition from other companies with similar devices that have no such requirement. This has the imminent danger of creating significant profit losses due to under-performing sales. In a business environment where one is already struggling to remain profitable, engaging in a maneuver that so clearly has the potential to shrink market penetration and sales success is just plain stupid.
TL;DR: An always-online connection is not required by either physics or necessary system design for electronic devices to function. Only electricity is required, which can be obtained in many different ways. Forcing always-online as a requirement for operation significantly reduces the viability of the product and carries an imminent potential for profit loss (you're not getting my money if you do this; I will leave video games entirely, if this is the direction of the industry, because it is not worth the hassle). Only an idiot would actually do something like this.
If I recall, Adam Orth tried to make the claim that the always-online requirement is analogous to having to plug a vacuum-cleaner into a wall socket. Naturally, everyone saw the error in this logic. Electricity is a physically required source of energy in order for the vacuum-cleaner to perform useful work in running its motor to move air in sufficient volume per time and rotate the brushes against friction such to perform the operation of cleaning by the intake of air. A game console does not physically require an internet connection in order to perform useful work (yes, calculations require work), and, unless it is online-multiplayer only, the game does not require an online connection; even if the game is online-multiplayer only, it does not necessarily require that there be a server as an intermediary to connect between players and manage the game. Plenty of games operate just fine with a peer-to-peer type connection. For this reason, the always-online requirement is simply an unreasonable restriction that only serves to provide inconvenience to the user and questionable anti-piracy benefit to the manufacturer or game producer.
Also, because internet access and stability is not homogeneous and isotropic, there is the danger that any company selling a device that has an always-online requirement for operation will be significantly cutting their market presence. Further, the same company will be opening itself to substantial, overwhelming competition from other companies with similar devices that have no such requirement. This has the imminent danger of creating significant profit losses due to under-performing sales. In a business environment where one is already struggling to remain profitable, engaging in a maneuver that so clearly has the potential to shrink market penetration and sales success is just plain stupid.
TL;DR: An always-online connection is not required by either physics or necessary system design for electronic devices to function. Only electricity is required, which can be obtained in many different ways. Forcing always-online as a requirement for operation significantly reduces the viability of the product and carries an imminent potential for profit loss (you're not getting my money if you do this; I will leave video games entirely, if this is the direction of the industry, because it is not worth the hassle). Only an idiot would actually do something like this.