Microsoft man on always-online consoles: 'Deal with it' | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft man on always-online consoles: 'Deal with it'

destructoid.com

31 pointstaytus17 comments

I've been gaming pretty much my entire life and the Xbox has been my primary console gaming platform since the original one. I currently own two Xbox 360s. I haven't owned a Playstation since the PS1.

I'm 99.9% sure my next console will be PS4. This isn't because of the "always-on" requirement or really any one particular issue in general but lots and lots of little signals that Sony seems to be re-positioning itself to be a platform that wants to delight gamers (see, for example, the focus they had on The Witness and indie games in their product announcement) while Microsoft has been increasingly positioning itself to be a media center first, games second, ads and micro DLC upsells everywhere. I'm pretty sick of paying $50 a year for their online service only to be inundated with ads constantly, being upsold constantly, the system still having no infrastructure for dedicated servers (thus having to play online games off of other Xbox Live user's shitty tethered cellphone connections in some cases), etc.

I'm sure Sony won't be perfect either and I'm really hoping systems like Ouya/Steambox/whatever really catch on in the long run, but I've been extremely disappointed with the Xbox experience lately to the point where I'm actively looking to jump ship in the next generation.

If anything, mobile gaming platforms (iOS, Android) have gotten users expecting minimal to zero wait times for decent quality graphics on games. And that's not even in their wheelhouse - other connected experiences like Netflix streaming and browsing are unbelievably better on a mobile device (esp. considering bluetooth inputs).

As pointed out elsewhere when this story was brought up, the two parties involved both have said it was a practical joke between the two of them, not meant to be any truthful information released to the public.

You can scrutinize the fact that this happened in public and you can discuss how truthful the two parties (from different companies) involved are being when they make this claim, but that's their side of the story. This is not meant to be an announcement from anyone at Microsoft that this will be in the next Xbox.

The problem is weather or not this does reflect his actual opinion. Was his response that it was simply a joke? Sarcasm taken wrong? That can happen to plenty of folks, and simply clarifying probably would have helped avoid the shitstorm.

His initial #dealwithit comment reflects a lot of what people are seeing in the industry today, so it's easy to believe he was serious and holds that opinion. Brushing off serious concerns with what was apparently a joke doesn't reflect well, either. No, it's not as though it's some kind of official announcement or leak of information. However it reflects on an attitude the big-league players have had, and an attitude which has been becoming more obvious and harmful to the consumers. Whatever we do, you'll still buy it. We don't actually care about your feedback. We'll do as we want regardless of what effect it has on you, and your only option is to deal with it.

Do you happen to have a link on hand where he says otherwise? If he claimed sarcasm, well, we really DO need to get around to making some kind of symbol or font :)

The guy he was tweeting back and forth with said something to the effect of "If you guys actually knew us, you'd know we're friends and we're just joking," at the end of it.

We don't need to go back in time more than two weeks to realize the social shitshow that can be Twitter and how it can have an impact on your employment. Whether it was a joke all along or not, it was a stupid sentiment to troll with when speaking as even the slightest bit of a representative for Microsoft.

> we're just joking

The worst thing he could really have done at this point was hide all of his tweets, particularly that one. If he kept something up saying it was just friendly banter, of course I don't really believe this, etc, then he could have not only saved him image, but also gotten more people to see him as ON their side vs against them. A huge boon for himself and his company as a whole.

People are people, and I can't expect a person to show absolutely zero character and personality outside of their company branding (And I am blessed to work for a company who thinks likewise). As a person and a figure of the industry, his opinion on things is something to pay attention to. If he could have just kept up that jk/lol tweet, things probably would not have turned out so nasty.

I'm curious what the ratio of Xbox 360s currently always connected to the internet to ones not always connected is. It may be possible that there is just a vocal minority upset about this issue. If there are non-DRM benefits to being always-on, then I would still like an option to turn it on or off.

There's no need to ever have your Xbox 360 always connected unless you play online or use the video services. The 360 is the worst device I've ever owned about nagging constant updates.

You've obviously never owned a PS3. The Xbox gets updated often, yeah, but generally those updates are quick. PS3 updates and mandatory software installs commonly stretch to the 30 minute mark and sometimes beyond, at least on my console and Internet connection.

I have both and find the XBox more annoying personally. I feel like it has more system-wide updates, but I think we're splitting hairs here, both are bad. We're talking about a market where it's normal to go out and buy a game, wait 10-15 minutes for the console to update, the game to update (maybe twice) before you ever get to play the game. I would consider that to be ripe for disruption.

I would'nt say 30 minutes but i would say they push a lot of updates. The only problem I have with that is that it's not always apparent what they're updating.

for the most part, my 360 is connected to the internet whenever it is on. my problem with the always-on requirement is that when my internet goes down (not often, maybe 3-4 times a year), my first thought "eh, i'll just play a video game until it comes back up". there have been two instances i can remember where i wasn't allowed to play a single player game that i purchased because i was not connected to the internet.

it's annoying and it's anti-consumer. for the next gen, i will be going with whoever doesn't have this restriction.

I am, I'm not buying your crap. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had in things I can spend money on that aren't your products.

Best quote in the article "I hope the entire next gen is 'always on DRM.' I love anything AAA does to make it easier for us indies to sell our games." and yes, that's exactly who I'm giving my money to.

It was bound to go this way IMO. Just escalation in the arms race to win out against piracy. I don't really see it going away anytime soon, unless some foolproof anti piracy scheme magically appears (and it won't).

When it comes to piracy, if people want to bypass it, they will.

Another sick DRM scheme.

Yeah, and MS will have to deal with Steam.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com