Disrupting Spycraft: Always-On Surveillance Is Prompting Massive Changes In Covert Operations

from the move-fast-and-break-your-own-stuff dept

The spies are back to complaining that the always-on digital world and the omnipresence of surveillance devices (both public and private) is making it difficult to do spy stuff.

Last January, sources were telling Yahoo that it's no longer enough to carry around a few fake documents to get past customs and engage in spycraft -- not when the cover identities are bereft of the digital detritus generated by simply existing in a connected world. And it's difficult to move about unobserved when every street light, business, and front porch has a camera attached to it, monitoring activity 24/7/365.

The report also noted that online access to a large variety of information also made it more difficult to engage in covert activities. Russian counterintelligence agents were apparently able to sniff out CIA agents working in US embassies by looking for things like prior postings in certain countries, pay bumps for hazardous work, or mismatches in salary for employees with similar titles. Some of this investigative work could be achieved by utilizing open source information gleaned from government sites and professional-oriented platforms like LinkedIn. Data from the massive Office of Personnel Management hack likely filled in the rest of the details.

It isn't all losses, though. The same surveillance apparati that made it difficult for covert operatives to maintain cover also made it easier for them to track their targets. But the overall tone of the report was that undercover work needed to undergo an extensive overhaul or it would be rendered almost entirely useless.

It's been almost two years since that report was released. Since then, surveillance tech has become even more ubiquitous, with governments and private citizens alike installing more cameras and monitoring other people's movements and activities more frequently.

The complaints from agencies utilizing covert surveillance haven't changed, though. What used to be extremely difficult is now almost impossible, according to this report from the Wall Street Journal. (alt. link here)

Operatives widely suspected of working for Israel’s Mossad spy service planned a stealthy operation to kill a Palestinian militant living in Dubai. The 2010 plan was a success except for the stealth part—closed-circuit cameras followed the team’s every move, even capturing them before and after they put on disguises.

In 2017, a suspected U.S. intelligence officer held a supposedly clandestine meeting with the half brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, days before the latter was assassinated. That encounter also became public knowledge, thanks to a hotel’s security camera footage.

Last December , it was Russia’s turn. Bellingcat, the investigative website, used phone and travel data to track three operatives from Moscow’s FSB intelligence service it said shadowed and then attempted to kill Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny. Bellingcat named the three. And published their photographs.

The CIA has its own issues, as the new director (William Burns) admitted during his February confirmation hearing. He said the CIA's bread-and-butter covert work was "much more difficult" to perform but expressed confidence the agency would find some way to work around these millions of inconveniences.

If packing a bag with a handful of aliases and their corresponding paperwork no longer works in a world where every cover story needs to be backed by a fleshed-out online existence, the solution might be to do away with the fakery. Instead of adopting personas as needed, agents will be expected to exist as someone else -- something that requires far more dedication and commitment than playing a small part for a few months or years to gather intelligence.

Crossing international borders under an assumed name is rapidly becoming yesteryear’s tradecraft, because of biometrics like facial recognition and iris scans, several former officials said.

“It’s more difficult for intelligence officers to masquerade under alias,” said a retired Western intelligence officer who estimated he had nine false identities during his career, and credit cards for each.

More spying will be done in “true name,” meaning the spy won’t pose as someone else, but “live their cover” as a businessperson, academic or other professional with no obvious connection to the U.S. government.

There will be no more coming in from the cold. Always-on surveillance is leading to always-on spycraft. Another alternative -- one already in use -- is the use of teams to perform covert work, with one handling the actual legwork while the rest of the team steers the operative clear of surveillance cameras in the area.

Something approaching schadenfreude comes from reading reports like these, where the early adopters and pioneers of surveillance tech are now realizing there's too much surveillance tech standing between them and their work. Pervasive surveillance has made citizens around the world aware lives can no longer be lived largely unobserved. A wealth of personal data only clicks away makes anonymity almost impossible.

And there's a layer of irony on top of the schadenfreude: the same governments that felt they needed thousands or millions of cameras to keep an eye on their citizens are finding out that massive surveillance systems are capable of exposing their own secrets to their adversaries. There's no rolling it back, either. The difficulty level of covert human intelligence operations is only going to keep increasing.

Filed Under: always on, cia, spycraft, surveillance

How Microsoft Delayed A Wildly Popular Xbox Feature To Clean Up Its Wildly Unpopular Always Online Plans

from the facepalm dept

The Xbox One has been back in the news recently as Microsoft has rolled out an update that makes the system backwards compatible with some original Xbox games. Much as with the backwards compatibility roll out for Xbox 360 games that Microsoft performed in 2015, fans of the system have been cheering this on. It's something a no-brainer, with this functionality making the system all the more appealing and increasing brand loyalty for the console as gamers will be conditioned to expect that the investments they've made in gaming titles won't go to waste once the shelf-life of a particular generation of systems runs its course.

Which raises the obvious question: why in the world did Microsoft wait until 2015 to put backwards compatibility in place? The answer, it seems, is that Microsoft suddenly became too busy cleaning up after the backlash to its always-online plans for the Xbox One to roll it out.

That nugget comes from a wide-ranging behind-the-scenes look at Microsoft's backward compatibility efforts posted on IGN this morning. Amid quotes from an array of Microsoft employees involved in the backward-compatibility development and rollout, writer Ryan McCaffrey includes this tidbit (emphasis added):

The fan-first feature has evolved from an experiment conducted by two separate Microsoft Research teams into a service planned for Xbox One's launch—complete with hardware hooks baked into the Durango silicon—until the well-publicized changes to the Xbox One policies (namely, stripping out the always-online requirement for the console) forced it to be pushed to the back burner.

Another way to put this would be: Microsoft had to spend so much time disabling a "feature" in its console that it should have known pretty much everyone would hate that it delayed enabling a feature it knew everyone would love. If that isn't a lesson in why companies should put their customer desires first and foremost in their minds, I don't what is.

If you don't remember what the console wars of 2013 were like, they were pure pandemonium for the Xbox. The always-online requirement was the headliner for this whole fiasco, but there were also questions about whether or not the Xbox One would allow used games to be played on it at all. Sony, meanwhile, took happy delight in reminding the public that its Playstation console had none of these questions attached to it. The result was a predictable loss for Xbox from a sales perspective, even as Microsoft then had to spend time and money to remove the always-online requirement.

And earlier this year, former Xbox Chief Marketing Officer Yusuf Mehdi reflected in a LinkedIn posthow "it required great technical work" to change course and reverse "a few key decisions regarding connectivity requirements and how games would be purchased that didn't land well with fans."

That kind of "great technical work" isn't free in terms of time or worker attention, and IGN's reporting suggests that Xbox 360 backward compatibility was an initial victim of that change in focus.

Maybe next time give your customers what they want rather than telling them what they want?

Filed Under: always on, drm, interoperability, xbox
Companies: microsoft

Remembering That Xbox Wanted Always Online DRM For Its Console In The Wake Of Major Xbox Live Outtage

from the got-lucky dept

Nearly half a decade into the current generation of gaming consoles, you will be forgiven if you don't recall some of the consternation surrounding Microsoft's initial plan to make the Xbox One have an "always online" requirement to play the games customers purchased. Microsoft initially floated this concept ahead of the console's release, perhaps testing the public waters for the requirement. If that was indeed the plan, the instinct to take the public's temperature on it was a good one, as the backlash was both swift and severe, particularly in light on Sony taking every opportunity to remind consumers that the Playstation 4 would have no such requirement. Predictably, at least to this author, Microsoft caved and removed this "feature", even as company employees who should have known better made insulting comments about how always online was the way of not just the future, but the present, and everyone should essentially shut up and get used to it.

Well, as many Xbox users will already know, Xbox Live had a major outtage this week. The service was down for somewhere between five and eight hours, depending on who you ask. And I mean completely down.

Xbox Live is experiencing some serious downtime at the moment, with many owners unable to play games or even sign in.

Microsoft acknowledged that both core services and purchasing was impacted before service was restored somewhere around 1am. Multiplayer games were affected, including major titles like Overwatch and Destiny. This is to be expected for online gaming when the online service is down. Single-player games, however, could still be played by putting the Xbox in "offline mode."

And that's great, except it's worth remembering that offline mode wasn't going to be a thing in Microsoft's initial plans. And, sure, five hours of being separated from a customer's legitimate purchases isn't a major travesty, but this outage demonstrates that even these minor inconveniences can be helpfully avoided by simply not requiring always online DRM. Had Microsoft had its way, paying customers would have been at best annoyed for several hours, unable to play the games they bought and certainly not being offered any recompense for their troubles.

More importantly, this episode should highlight several things. First, this is Microsoft we're talking about, and they were down hard for several hours. Let's acknowledge that it could have been worse. What if the service were down for several days? Second, what if this wasn't Microsoft we were talking about, with all of its riches and resources, but a smaller entity unable to recover so quickly? How long would the service have been down, keeping paying, legitimate customers from their valid purchases? Third, all of this real and potential damage to legitimate customers had been achieved for what? The Playstation, as we've noted, doesn't have this requirement, yet it is making money hand over fist. What good would Microsoft's original plan have done for all of this potential damage?

Those questions aside, Microsoft ought to be writing love letters to the fans that revolted against its always online plan. It's that backlash that helped keep this minor inconvenience for online gamers from being a full-blown PR nightmare.

Filed Under: always on, broken, connectivity, copyright, drm, xbox
Companies: microsoft

What If You Published Half Your Book For Free Online?

from the interesting-experiments-in-publishing dept

Almost exactly 17 years ago, we wrote about an interesting experiment in the movie world, in which the film Chicken Run freely chose to put the first 7 minutes of the film online (in my head, I remember it being the first 20 minutes, but I'll chalk that up to inflation). I thought it was a pretty clever experiment and am still surprised that this didn't become the norm. The idea is pretty straightforward -- rather than just doing a flashy trailer that may give away much of the movie anyway -- you give people the beginning of the actual movie, get them hooked, and convince them it's worthwhile to go pay to see the whole thing. Of course, that only works with good movies where the beginning hooks people. But... it's also interesting to think about whether or not this kind of thing might work for books as well.

In this always on world, where some fear that people are so hooked on short attention span bits of information raining down from Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat, there's a reasonable concern that people just aren't willing or able to disconnect for long enough to actually read a full book. Some argue that we may be reading more, but getting less out of all of this. But now author/entrepreneur Rob Reid and Random House are experimenting with something similar. If they have to convince people to put down the internet to read a full book, why not go to the internet first. Rob has announced that he (and Random House) has teamed up with Medium to publish the first 40% of his latest novel, After On, which is coming out in full on August 1st.

Now, you may recall, five years ago, Rob came out with a fun book called Year Zero, a hilarious comic sci-fi story about aliens needing to destroy the earth... because of massive copyright infringement (no, really). With that book, we were able to publish a short excerpt, but that isn't always enough to get people hooked. With After On, a massive chunk of the (admittedly massive!) book will be published online in a dozen segments over the next few weeks leading up to the release of the actual book (the first few segments are entirely free -- and after that, they want you to become a "member" of Medium, but you can get your first two weeks free for membership -- or you can just go buy the book by that point.

Rob has written a blog post talking about this experiment and what went into it -- and he'll also be on the Techdirt podcast tomorrow to talk more about it. In this book, while not about copyright, it does touch on a number of other issues that we frequently write about here, including patents, privacy, AI, terms of service and... the general nature of startup culture. The book is super interesting and engaging, but this experiment is interesting in its own way as well:

After putting 7,500 hours of my life into it, I want After On to reach lots of people. But I’m even more interested in reaching the people it will truly resonate with. It’s quirky, costs money, and entails a real time commitment. So if it’s not right for you, I’d rather not take your dollars or hours (which is arguably bad for business — but good businesspeople don’t write sprawling novels for a living). Whereas if it is right for you, I want you to discover it with as little friction as possible. Both goals made a big excerpt on Medium seem like a good idea.

My pitch to Random House evoked the largely bygone practice of US magazines excerpting new books. Licensing fees cost editors less than a major article, and publishers were pleased to generate income while promoting new titles. This practice is now rare. Reasons include the drop-off in print advertising, which has lowered magazine page counts, squeezing content. So why not transplant this pillar of the publishing ecosystem? Without trees to topple or ink to smear, we can release much longer excerpts online. Digital excerpts travel globally, and widespread excerpts will help books reach their most natural audiences. Better fits between books and readers will make reading more delightful, which means more books should sell — and hey, presto, everybody wins!

Anyway, check out the first excerpt that just went a little while ago, in which Rob (or the book's narrator...?) dares you to read the whole damn thing...

Filed Under: always on, books, publishing, rob reid
Companies: medium, random house

Xbox One Release: Tons Of Questions, Very Few Answers

from the confused dept

Unless, like me, you are looking at the release dates for the next generation of gaming consoles the way a starving hyena watches an approaching gazelle that's been eating nothing but butter for weeks, perhaps you're not up on all the information coming about regarding Microsoft's next console. Actually, as I'll discuss in a moment, even if you are paying constant attention, you probably still don't know a whole lot for sure. See, after months and months of speculation on possible features of the next Xbox, Microsoft stupidly decided to not firmly address any of that speculation at the release event for the Xbox One. The most troublesome in terms of bad press have been rumors about online connection requirements and how used games would be handled. I say press, but perhaps I should rather say non-mainstream press, because it's really been the smaller blogs and citizen journalists that have produced a roundly negative buzz for the Xbox One.

You would think that in a negative and uncertain climate that's been brewing for the past several months, Microsoft would use the official release press event as a way to clear all of this up. Good answers or bad answers, it's important that the public and the press have a firm understanding on what to expect out of the console. Aren't we constantly told that uncertainty is four letter word in economics and business? That's why it's so curious that Microsoft appears to have provided very little in the way of answers and what answers it has chosen to supply have been both contradictory and confusing.

So, let's take the two issues in order. First up is rumors about online requirements.

It turns out that the detail we were murkiest about was the one Microsoft themselves are the murkiest about. The official Microsoft party line on the day the company revealed the Xbox One: "It does not have to be always connected, but Xbox One does require a connection to the Internet."

Welcome back. I say that because I assume you just spent the past fifteen minutes rereading that last sentence over and over again trying to figure out what the hell it means. As it turns out, the key word is "always." The Xbox One will require an internet connection at certain points, but it won't need to constantly be connected to function. So, what are those certain points? Well, nobody, including Microsoft, seems to know, which is strange of them to admit since it's their nun-punching freaking product. Microsoft executive Phil Harrison told Kotaku that he "believes" a connection is required once every 24 hours. Oh, and possibly one is needed in order to play a new game for the first time. Also when you first use the console. The lack of finality in these answers is astounding, particularly coming from a Microsoft executive giving interviews at the release event. Imagine going to your local auto show and having a Ford Motor VP telling you how wonderful their new car is, but can't firmly answer any questions about its motor or how many miles-per-gallon it gets?

And with the question of used games, we do no better. Harrison told one reporter:

"We will have a system where you can take that digital content and trade a previously played game at a retail store. We're not announcing the details of that today, but we will have announced in due course."

Then told another:

"We will have a solution—we're not talking about it today—for you to be able to trade your previously-played games online."

What you immediately notice is not only the lack of any specifics to one of the major questions hanging over the console like a set of rain clouds, but even these two non-answers are different. The first talks about used games being traded at retail stores, while the second seems to mention trading games online. That'd be a huge development if true, with some kind of Microsoft online trading platform threatening GameStop and other used game retailers. Speaking of which, reports are already surfacing that Microsoft is requiring agreements limited to select retailers to actually be able to buy and sell used games. If those reports are accurate, trading games will only be possible through those select retailers and the game publisher and Microsoft will take a massive cut of the transaction, leaving retailers with very little margin. The end results of this setup will be higher prices for used games and the inability for gamers to trade games with one another.

Still, as bad as that would be, Microsoft hasn't even officially confirmed that program either. Between that uncertainty and that of online connection requirements, it's no wonder the general public hasn't been keen on the Xbox One release yet. There is a market, sadly, for the kind of walled gardens and restrictive requirements discussed above. Apple's mobile devices prove that. But where Apple officially and boisterously owns those concepts, Microsoft's opaque stance on these questions can only mute any release buzz for their new console. It's high time the company got everyone on message.

Filed Under: always on, used games, xbox, xbox one
Companies: microsoft

Attention Game Developers And Console Manufacturers: 'Always On' Is NOT The Same As 'Always Connectable'

from the for-starters,-one's-an-imposition dept

Game publishers and console manufacturers have been feeling some intensified heat from customers about "always on" requirements. (SimCity, anyone?) Microsoft has been battling rumours that the new Xbox will need an internet connection to function, an issue greatly magnified by some unfortunate tweets by its (former) Creative Director.

Ubisoft has played the villain quite frequently in recent years, lacing its single player games with DRM requiring (at minimum) an initial internet connection at bootup. The CEO of Ubisoft Montreal (Yannis Mallat) seems to be perfectly fine with "always online" next gen consoles, stating simply, "I would say that a lot of people are already always online through other devices. I would suspect the audience is ready."

It almost seems like a logical statement, but Mallat is making some huge assumptions about what the public is "ready" for. A console that won't do anything without (at the very least) phoning home isn't one of them, as indie game developer Rob Fearon (a.k.a. Rob Remakes -- creator of DRM, a game with absolutely no DRM) points out in his rather devastating response post.

Look, we really need to start making the difference clear here. Lots of people are always connectible through other devices not always online. My iThing is always connectible, my computer is always connectible, my Xbox360 is always connectible. None are always online. Neither do they require me to be online to be functional.

Those pushing for this sort of "innovation" continually point to the fact that many people spend a great deal of time on the internet as an indication that the public is dying to purchase a console that requires an always-on connection, even though no console has ever required that in the past. If this half-assed assumption/analogy fails to do the job, they trot out several others. Rob has answers for each and every one of these industry-tropes-in-the-making.

"Steam requires an internet connection."

Even Steam which is for the most part like a rock, that falls on its arse occasionally. Thing is, if Steam falls on its arse occasionally then that’s OK because I don’t need to be connected most of the time providing I’ve got a nice offline mode to rely on.

"Your phone always needs to be 'connected.'"

My phone is always on, yeah. And there’s loads of times where I can’t use my phone because the signal drops, the phone goes a bit bonkers for some reason, I’m in a lead lined shed like I think our local Asda is or something. I dunno. Thing is, my one big “always on” device has more time where I can’t use it than anything else I own. This is something to aspire to? Something that’s not always functional like my phone?

"Cable/DSL? That flows right into your house like water from a tap you can't shut off, right?"

Always on, except when it isn't. No one has 100% uptime. No one. Even the services behind these consoles, like Xbox Live, experience downtime. What then? A console that needs to connect to play a game is effectively shut down because the underlying platform is undergoing routine maintenance/hacking.

There's no comparison that results in 100% uptime, or any percentage that's going to satisfy someone who's just shelled out $500 for a paperweight that contains all the hardware and software to play games but simply won't unless something on the other end gives the thumbs up.

I’m not really convinced I want a console that’s as always on as my phone is. I’m not really convinced I want a console that’s as always on as my cable is. Because I want to just be able to play my console. I don’t want to buy into something that has less uptime than what I already have, I don’t want to buy something less likely to let me play when I want.

This is what people are worried about and this is why they're irate. If a console manufacturer decides to add this requirement to its hardware, it will be going against the wishes of its customers solely to satisfy its own agenda(s). That agenda may be to push its online services harder. That agenda may be to reduce piracy. That agenda may be to cut out the secondhand market. All of these agendas cater to the desires of the manufacture. They do absolutely nothing for the end users.

Ubisoft's CEO thinks the audience is ready. It's a bullshit statement. Certain game developers and console manufacturers might be, but the audience certainly isn't. But it's more than a self-serving bit of PR speak. It's a statement of intent.

[W]hen someone says “we think the audience is ready” you can read that as “we’re doing it anyway” really.

Keep that in mind when you hear statements from developers and console manufacturers about the public's apparently secret love for always-connected devices. Their "read" on the market is nothing more than them signalling a desire to put the customers' desires dead last.

Filed Under: always connected, always on, consoles, drm, video games

Microsoft Creative Director Defends Always-Online, Insults Customers, Murders Logic...All In One Day!

from the the-dark-side-is-strong-in-this-one dept

Remember that whole SimCity thing, where the always online requirement of the game turned into launch failures, massive backlash, and caused EA/Maxis to lie like it was their job? Yeah, good times. It was almost as if the whole debacle was some kind of how-not-to-do-video-games piece of performance art. Well, the good news is that everyone in the video game industry has learned their lesson, realizing that they need to treat their customers with respect and understand that their demands fuel sales, which means not including requirements they don't want. Yup, they all get it now. We won.

Hint: If all of you aren't laughing like this by now, your sarcasm detector needs tuning
Image source: CC BY-SA 2.0

Just kidding! You see, amid heavy speculation that the next Xbox from Microsoft will require some form of always-online component, Microsoft's Creative Director Adam Orth decided now was the time to head to Twitter for what appears to be an "insulting customers and forgetting logic" incantation that I can only imagine is intended to Bloody Mary his career. Let me first stress two things: the rumors about the Xbox are not confirmed, and Orth does not make mention of the Xbox specifically. Instead, Orth tweeted:

"Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an "always on" console. Every device is "always on". That's the world we live in. #dealwithit"

Except that isn't true, of course. My iPad isn't always online. Neither is my phone. Or, hell, my damned computer. In fact, come to think of it, this side of a couple of poorly thought-out pieces of gaming software, I don't know that I own a single device that is required to always be online. And what about potential customers that might not have access to reliable internet connections? Or might not have connections at all? Well, according to Orth:

"Those people should definitely get with the times and get the internet. It's awesome."

It's hard to imagine a more out of touch dismissal of a reasonable question. There are people who, for a variety of reasons, don't have reliable connections. Broadband penetration in the United States is pretty wide, but in terms of speed and reliability we're well behind the rest of the industrialized world, 15th out of 30 in penetration and 26th globally in terms of speed. And that doesn't even take into account less common circumstances, such as those serving abroad that might not have access to the internet for a host of reasons. You're simply telling them to "get with the times?"

But if you thought that was bad, Orth then goes completely off the logic rails in what he thinks is a rebuttal to shoddy internet connections.

"Sometimes the electricity goes out. I will not purchase a vacuum cleaner. The mobile reception in the area I live in is spotty and unreliable. I will not buy a mobile phone."

This is where I get really, really pissed off. If you want an always online system and if you want to dismiss part of a potential customer base in the process, go ahead. I don't think it's smart, but it's your business, do what you want. But when you start filling my eyes with bullshit like the above, you've gone too far. See, the thing is that a vacuum cleaner isn't a device that could run without electricity but was designed to not work unless it had it. Always electrified isn't a choice for vacuum cleaners. And with spotty mobile coverage, guess what, sir? If I couldn't use the damned phone due to crappy coverage, you're damned right I wouldn't spend the money on the phone. Who would? But even so, the very nature of the phone requires coverage. It isn't a manufacturer choice, it's the nature of the device. Game consoles, most software, and a host of other technology products, on the other hand, opt in to always-online. Pretending those analogies are the same is a further insult to your consumers, who you must think are too stupid to know better.

So, to recap simply, we don't know if the new Xbox will have an always-online requirement, but we do know that Microsoft has a real problem at the head of one of its departments. Perhaps someone should explain to Adam Orth that insulting customers isn't the best way to do business. Personally, I'd like to see that explanation written on the back of his termination papers.

Filed Under: adam orth, always on, game consoles, xbox
Companies: microsoft

German Consumer Group Not Happy With Diablo 3 Internet Requirements

from the it-needs-what? dept

Ever since Blizzard created the massive hit that is World of Warcraft, it has decided that requiring gamers to be constantly connected to the internet while playing is a good thing. Unfortunately, things have not gone as smoothly as it had hoped. If you are familiar with recent events surrounding the release of Blizzard's latest game Diablo 3, you may recall the Error 37 issue in which users who tried to connect to Blizzard's servers on launch day were unable to due to the lack of infrastructure. Since then, it has had fewer issues, but still some users have difficulty staying connected to the servers while playing and thus risk losing progress that has not been saved. This has some people and groups upset.

Via Cinema Blend, we learn that one German consumer group has given Blizzard an ultimatum to change the Diablo 3 packaging to reflect the need for such a connection. The original report from the German site PC Games states:

Potential purchasers must know before purchase what are the requirements for the software to be used. Whether a permanent Internet connection, obligatory registration to an Internet platform including the related access to a game, or downloading additional software: all these things are essential information that the user much receive before purchase.

The primary complaint is that the requirement to create and log in to Blizzard's Battle.net service in order to play is not clearly disclosed prior to purchase. Because of this requirement to be tethered to a constant internet connection, some people are having a number of issues, even when trying to play single player modes of the game. This consumer group has given Blizzard until July 27th to respond to the complaint. If Blizzard fails to respond or respond adequately, the group is prepared to pursue legal options against the company.

Unfortunately for gamers, many game companies are moving toward the use of this kind of "always-on" DRM. To those companies, it is a necessary part of the war on piracy. However, these DRM schemes are more often a nuisance for paying customers who have to deal with unexpected and even planned server outages. What makes these types of DRM more infuriating to consumers is the fact that it not only applies to the multiplayer portions, where you can understand a potential need for an internet connection, but also to single player portions that are typically done locally. There is never a reason to require that a gamer be connected to a server at all times when playing by themselves.

Hopefully as more consumer groups and consumers in general voice their dissatisfaction with such DRM schemes, more game developers will listen. We have seen many developers already making the stand that DRM is not useful or wanted. Those developers have found that treating fans with respect is a far more effective means of maximizing profits than any DRM scheme could ever be.

Filed Under: always on, diablo 3, drm
Companies: blizzard

Does Advertising 'Always On' Service Mean It Can Never Go Down?

from the might-be-a-stretch dept

We have no problem crying foul when companies like Comcast and Verizon market their services as "unlimited" when the fine print has many limits. However, a new lawsuit against Comcast may take a similar concept a bit too far. A customer is suing the company, claiming breach of contract because his internet connection went down, despite Comcast's marketing materials claiming the service is "always on." While Comcast does have a reputation for tremendous downtime (something I experienced myself back when I was a Comcast customer), it seems like a bit of a stretch to claim that "always on" means that the service can never go down. The difference between something like this and the "unlimited" claim, is that while service providers are pitching unlimited service, they have internal policies by choice that limit usage. However, when it comes to the network going down, that's not a policy choice, but a technical issue.

Filed Under: always on, truth in advertising
Companies: comcast