Cliff Bleszinski defends Former Microsoft exec Adam Orth and always-online - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Desuh;40258837]I just don't see a point in having to be always connected to the internet. I don't care about achievments and being connected. I just want to play video games. We are already too dependant on the internet. It should be optional.[/QUOTE] The games should work but with the online features disabled. This is the part I don't understand. The argument that most people play games with an internet connection may be true, but there is nothing that makes a single player game require the internet. If there WAS some sort of reason for this then I could possibly understand it, but as it stands it seems like some games need an internet connection just for the sake of it.

always online is like having one of those fridges that you can tweet from, except it tweets automatically, and if you lose connection you can't open the fucking fridge

Since nobody will read what he wrote, I'll post the interesting parts: [quote]Remember when Microsoft made the decision to only allow broadband on Xbox Live? It was a bold move back then; broadband penetration wasn’t anywhere near what it is now. And yet the march of progress continued. Sooner or later our government, or Google, or any number of providers are going to get their shit together and we’ll have universally fast internet for the majority of the first world. Or at least the ability to stream Dawson’s Creek on fucking Netflix at decent quality. ... My wife and I were discussing these issues this afternoon and she mentioned the example of “Hey what if I’m a gamer who wants to go to a cabin in the woods for a week and I don’t have online access there?” My response was “Unplugging entirely sometimes isn’t always a bad thing. And that’s the edge case…the week-long vacation to the cabin is only 30 hours of not playing a game or a device that’s built for much more. [i]Technology doesn’t advance by worrying about the edge case.[/i] ... If we don’t have devices that aren’t fully always online you can bet your ass that we’ll have devices that encourage you to return to the online ecosystem in order to “check in” and make sure everything on the system is legit. Could you hack/jailbreak such a device? Sure, but that crowd will almost always be the die hard/enthusiast crowd that’s not the average user and makes up a small percentage of the potential sales.[/quote]

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40258943]Since nobody will read what he wrote, I'll post the interesting parts:[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase in people jail breaking their console to get around always online, then its a small step to just pirating games to the console.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40258769] The only way a game can sell well while screwing over the customer is if gamers are so braindead that they'll buy the Next Big Thing no matter how awful its policies are.[/QUOTE] Now you're starting to catch on.

[QUOTE=Valdread;40259095]I wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase in people jail breaking their console to get around always online, then its a small step to just pirating games to the console.[/QUOTE] The average consumer doesn't care. The people who want to pirate anyways just have an additional step. I really strongly doubt adding another step before you can use pirated games will encourage piracy. [editline]12th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mingebox;40259125]Now you're starting to catch on.[/QUOTE] In which case I have zero sympathy. The phrase 'vote with your wallet' has become almost trite, but if consumers as a whole will complain and complain and complain and then go and buy in record numbers anyways, it only encourages developers to ignore their complaints.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40259143]The average consumer doesn't care. The people who want to pirate anyways just have an additional step. I really strongly doubt adding another step before you can use pirated games will encourage piracy. [/QUOTE] Its not about adding another step, its about adding something that the user would want without, its like jail breaking your phone to remove limitations manufactures have put on them. Its become so common to jailbreak your phone that shops provide services to do that.

[QUOTE=catbarf;40259143] In which case I have zero sympathy. The phrase 'vote with your wallet' has become almost trite, but if consumers as a whole will complain and complain and complain and then go and buy in record numbers anyways, it only encourages developers to ignore their complaints.[/QUOTE] It is trite. It's an overly simplistic idea that excuses all sorts of anti-consumer practices under the assumption there is always going to be a significant number of people who care or know they're being screwed over, which is often, if not usually, not the case.

Indie devs save us, please!

[QUOTE=Mingebox;40259301]It is trite. It's an overly simplistic idea that excuses all sorts of anti-consumer practices under the assumption there is always going to be a significant number of people who care or know they're being screwed over, which is often, if not usually, not the case.[/QUOTE] You've basically proven my point. Most consumers don't know and don't care. And then, of those who do know and do care, many hypocritically go and buy it anyways. So why should a publisher listen to this vocal minority, when even they buy the product in spite of its issues? For almost all of the intended market, always-on is not an issue. For the outspoken minority that feels that it's an issue, I expect a boycott to go [URL="http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b378/omarfw123/1258248783080.png"]about as well as Modern Warfare 2's did[/URL]. As long as people buy the system, these DRM schemes will become more and more commonplace.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;40259301]It is trite. It's an overly simplistic idea that excuses all sorts of anti-consumer practices under the assumption there is always going to be a significant number of people who care or know they're being screwed over, which is often, if not usually, not the case.[/QUOTE] If almost none of the consumers care, then why should the publishers care?

[QUOTE=Ericson666;40259858]If almost none of the consumers care, then why should the publishers care?[/QUOTE] I guess there's no point in not being Mr. Scrooge as long as your pockets are getting fatter. It doesn't benefit any consumer and it's completely unnecessary like XBL's fee. I just think consumers would find it nicer if they didn't get prodded for no reason. I only see Sony really benefiting if the always on news is true.

I might pre-order the next Xbox soon, and if Microsoft officially announce it's always online cancel the pre-order. If enough people did that I think the message might go through. Simply NOT buying it in the first place isn't really going to work as well in my opinion because then they don't have too much comparison as to how many sales they COULD have had. If 4 million people pre-ordered the next Xbox then cancelled that pre-order it might be enough to jolt Microsoft back into reality even if millions more still buy the damn thing. Maybe.

Cliffy B needs to stop pretending he's David Jaffe.

Yeah, sure; always on is coming... does it need to be coming right now? No, no it clearly does not.

So they're already trying to make always online detractors look like Luddites, like we've not moved on with the times. They're trying to show us the boogeyman by pointing at the new generation of kids who never knew a world without internet. They're hoping a day will come when we'll become a minority. This is why it's important to call out this bullshit EVERY FUCKING TIME.

Next generation might not be always online, but it is approaching really fast. It might be too premature to implement that now, but if this trend continues the following generation [i]will[/i] be always online.

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;40258663]I think always-online is bad, I tend to not have internet every other month (in fact, I am losing my internet sometime this month) and I would like to play games I spent money on.[/QUOTE] Obviously we're not at the point for always-online games. It is coming, but we're not there yet. I do enjoy the last bit of your post, implying that I don't think you should be able to play your games. I'll clarify. Most of this forum uses Steam for most of their gaming. Steam Community has friends, groups, a TON of social features. While there's a basic offline mode (you'll notice in my original post I mentioned that I'd enjoy this), it's DRM is a fantastic online service. Xbox LIVE and PSN do something very similar. I believe in providing an awesome service in addition to DRM to not only give the consumer more, but also connecting gamers like I've been doing on Xbox LIVE for the past decade. I too would like you to play the games you've spent your hard-earned money on, and I think one day everyone will have steady internet connections. I do not want publishers to take away your games, but rather I want gamers to get new and exciting features while giving publishers the security to continue funding your favorite games. I understand an always-online DRM will limit your gaming if you're offline. I agree with CliffyB, and this line sums up my reasoning perfectly: "If you’re on a forum raging about Adam’s comments there’s a whole new generation of kids who are growing up always online who won’t really give a shit.". My Xbox has done this for me. I've already grown up with a form of this, and it really and truly doesn't matter. Right now the system isn't perfect, but as technology advances internet will be more widely available and forms of DRM will evolve into more consumer-friendly systems. There will be exceptions, but as CliffyB said: "[I]Technology doesn’t advance by worrying about the edge case.[/I]".

It's just unreal what an asshole Cliffy B is.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;40264355]It's just unreal what an asshole Cliffy B is.[/QUOTE] He is truly stupid on an epic scale.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40264385]He is truly stupid on an epic scale.[/QUOTE] Clearly he just doesn't care about consumer rights and all that Jazz.

remember when gears of war was cool remember 2006 which was 7 years ago

[QUOTE=Agoat;40264163]Obviously we're not at the point for always-online games. It is coming, but we're not there yet. I do enjoy the last bit of your post, implying that I don't think you should be able to play your games. I'll clarify. Most of this forum uses Steam for most of their gaming. Steam Community has friends, groups, a TON of social features. While there's a basic offline mode (you'll notice in my original post I mentioned that I'd enjoy this), it's DRM is a fantastic online service. Xbox LIVE and PSN do something very similar. I believe in providing an awesome service in addition to DRM to not only give the consumer more, but also connecting gamers like I've been doing on Xbox LIVE for the past decade. I too would like you to play the games you've spent your hard-earned money on, and I think one day everyone will have steady internet connections. I do not want publishers to take away your games, but rather I want gamers to get new and exciting features while giving publishers the security to continue funding your favorite games. I understand an always-online DRM will limit your gaming if you're offline. I agree with CliffyB, and this line sums up my reasoning perfectly: "If you’re on a forum raging about Adam’s comments there’s a whole new generation of kids who are growing up always online who won’t really give a shit.". My Xbox has done this for me. I've already grown up with a form of this, and it really and truly doesn't matter. Right now the system isn't perfect, but as technology advances internet will be more widely available and forms of DRM will evolve into more consumer-friendly systems. There will be exceptions, but as CliffyB said: "[I]Technology doesn’t advance by worrying about the edge case.[/I]".[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is "Fuck you because most of the other people will be too dumb to notice"

Is it just me or CliffyB just loves to jump onto these bandwagons and just choose a random side just to start a shitstorm? From his point of view, it's probably really funny for people to go with something just because of his opinion, or get angry because of it. Being extremely wealthy, it probably doesn't matter to him. Also, online always DRM is dumb, and D3 launch proved it. Although I have to say that using dedicated servers with jump-in Multiplayer was neat, why isn't there just a singleplayer mode?

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;40264966]Is it just me or CliffyB just loves to jump onto these bandwagons and just choose a random side just to start a shitstorm? From his point of view, it's probably really funny for people to go with something just because of his opinion, or get angry because of it. Being extremely wealthy, it probably doesn't matter to him. Also, online always DRM is dumb, and D3 launch proved it. Although I have to say that using dedicated servers with jump-in Multiplayer was neat, why isn't there just a singleplayer mode?[/QUOTE] Saints Row 3 did jump-in multiplayer perfectly. You can play offline and singleplayer, but when you are online your friends can just jump in whenever they want. This is the best of both worlds and there is literally NOT A SINGLE DISADVANTAGE to that model. You just can't possibly argue against that model without looking like a stupid, ignorant asshole.

It doesn't matter what the vision of developers is. If the public doesn't like it, it's not gonna have a future.

I'm probably not the only one jumping over the fence to the PS4 rather than staying on Xbox.

[QUOTE=backfoggen;40264410]remember when gears of war was cool remember 2006 which was 7 years ago[/QUOTE] I'm still waiting for a [I]GOOD[/I] Unreal Tournament sequel.

[QUOTE=zakedodead;40264640]So what you're saying is "Fuck you because most of the other people will be too dumb to notice"[/QUOTE] good job picking out one sentence from the post and exaggerating it to the point where of course the entire post will be disagreeable. you have mastered debate [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] the issue with always online is the way it's used by publishers, not by devs. always online is bad when: 1. it's a cheap cover for drm 2. it has no alternative offline mode there are loads of games that fall under these. games like from dust that have absolutely no social connectivity and therefore no reason to be online, and there's also no offline mode there are games, however, where always online was obviously used, or at least tried to be used, as a force for good - for delivering some sort of experience or service that couldn't be delivered otherwise. for example, my brother played nfs: hot pursuit for months and months, far longer than he would have done if it didn't have always-online features. the social media connectivity of that game had him coming back for more and more. obviously this style of approach won't appeal to or work for everyone, but the blind hate of always online as some sort of conspiracy theorist ea/ubisoft drm hate is silly [editline]13th April 2013[/editline] the other issue is that always online isn't keeping the same pace as broadband technology so when there's no offline mode alternative it really screws some people over

Actually Microsoft or someone else should try an always on console. Then when we see it's a piece of shit and doesn't work, nobody will think of it ever again!