Bethesda, Microsoft Make Conflicting Statements About Game Exclusivity After Studio Purchase

from the please-don't dept

Several weeks ago, Microsoft bought Zenimax Media, the parent organization of Bethesda Softworks for over $7 billion. Bethesda is a celebrated studio best known for its Fallout and Elder Scrolls titles. Both series have long histories of being published across a wide range of gaming platforms, including the PC, PlayStation, and Xbox markets. Almost immediately after the deal, however, many gamers openly worried that Microsoft would warehouse the properties to either the PC or Xbox markets exclusively.

The worry didn't cease when Kotaku interviewed Xbox chief Phil Spencer about the implications of the deal and Spencer's remarks were decidedly noncommittal.

“Is it possible to recoup a $7.5 billion investment if you don’t sell Elder Scrolls VI on the PlayStation?” I asked.

“Yes,” Spencer quickly replied.

Then he paused.

“I don’t want to be flip about that,” he added. “This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that. Nowhere in the documentation that we put together was: ‘How do we keep other players from playing these games?’ We want more people to be able to play games, not fewer people to be able to go play games. But I’ll also say in the model—I’m just answering directly the question that you had—when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don’t have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us. Whatever that means.”

Whatever that means. Well, what it means is that there has been enough conversation of how Bethesda franchises will be distributed and sold that Spencer felt confident saying that those games didn't need to be multi-platform in order for the deal to still be profitable. Couching this all in the fact that the specific language of the acquisition didn't mention exclusivity is all fine and good, but Spencer had this answer ready to go. That likely means that there has been at least some discussion about taking those games exclusive to the Xbox, or Microsoft's forthcoming game-streaming services. Coupled with a growing trend in exclusivity both in the console and PC gaming spaces, this wasn't exactly encouraging for those that think exclusivity deals are a terrible idea and terrible for the industry.

Todd Howard, one of the creative leads at Bethesda, was at least a bit more forceful in his remarks to Ars Technica when asked if this was about to become a thing.

"I would agree that is hard to imagine" The Elder Scrolls VI restricted to Microsoft platforms, Howard said in response to a direct question on the matter.

Elsewhere in the interview, Howard admits that the parties haven't fully discussed the details of multiplatform publishing as part of the purchase deal, which won't be finalized until next year. "We haven't gone through all of that, to be honest," he said.  Howard also stressed Bethesda's autonomy to "[run] our games and [push] everything the way that we have," even as a Microsoft subsidiary. "We felt very strongly about their view of access; games for everybody that we can bring to anybody regardless of where they are, what devices they're playing on. We're very, very passionate about that, and at the end of the day we're convinced we'll make better products and get them to more people easily by being part of Xbox as opposed to being just a third party."

But that's still not really a firm answer. Bethesda's vision can be whatever it wants, but its part of Microsoft now. If you're into reading industry tea leaves, it doesn't look like there are any serious plans by Microsoft for locking up these beloved franchises. But sans a commitment by the company to not do so, there is still much worry that access to them may go away for many.

Why anyone would think that would push more people to buy an Xbox in significant numbers is an mystery.

Filed Under: acquisitions, competition, consoles, elder scrolls, exclusivity, fallout, playstation, studios, video games, xbox
Companies: bethesda, microsoft, zenimax media

The Next Generation Of Video Game Consoles Could Be The Beginning Of GameStop's Death

from the stop-discing-around dept

Predictions about the death of video game retailer GameStop have been with us for at least a decade. There have been many reasons for such predictions, ranging from the emergence of digital downloaded games gobbling up market share to declines in retail stores generally. But there are two recent new headwinds that might frankly be the end of this once ubiquitous franchise as we know it.

The first headwind is one common to all kinds of retailers currently: the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic is actually almost certainly worse for GameStop compared with retailers for other industries. As noted above, sales for the industry have long been trending towards digital downloads. Yes, there are still those out there who insist on buying physical media games, and in many cases there are good reasons for doing so, but the truth is that market was shrinking steadily for a long, long time. With the pandemic both shuttering many retail stores and keeping scared consumers out of those that remain open, the digital market share in the gaming industry has grown quickly. Whether anyone will want to go back to buying physical copies of games, new or used, is an open question.

All of which might not ultimately matter, as the other headwind is the next generation of consoles being released with options for no built in disc drive at all.

The latest quarterly earnings report from GameStop doesn't show much sign of a turnaround for the long-troubled game retailer. Sales were down 26.7 percent year over year for the April through June quarter. Even accounting for permanent store closures and COVID-related reduced operating hours, so-called comparable "same-store" sales were still down 12.7 percent year over year. GameStop's already depressed stock is down nearly 8 percent on the news, as of this writing.

GameStop still publicly sees an "opportunity to capitalize" on the upcoming release of new Sony and Microsoft consoles, which could help turn its business around in the short term. But there's some reason to believe the coming generation of consoles could actually make GameStop's long-term prospects worse, thanks to console options that get rid of disc drives entirely.

During a recent earnings call, CEO George Sherman tried to spin this in the opposite direction, pointing out that the new consoles include an option for a disc drive as a reason for optimism. A huge chunk of GameStop's money is made reselling used games that are marked up considerably. If the best a cheerleader for the company can muster is pointing out that, at least for this generation, some of the consoles will still have drives... well, that isn't great.

Especially when you put this all in context. Both Microsoft's Xbox and Sony's PlayStation forthcoming consoles have options for discless devices that are priced significantly less than the alternative. That represents yet another reason why some gamers, who might not have gone all digital otherwise, will be jumping ship. Between the virus pushing more gamers to download games digitally, lower priced consoles in the middle of an economic downturn, and the general trends that pre-date the pandemic, the analogies some are drawing to GameStop's future aren't pretty.

Sherman confirmed in the earnings call that GameStop will sell these disc-drive-free consoles in its stores, a move akin to a world where Tower Records decided to sell iPods as its physical album sales cratered.

Yikes.

Now, none of this suggests that every gamer everywhere is ready to give up discs. Nor should this be taken to indicate that retail game stores are going to become fully extinct. In fact, I don't think the Tower Records analogy is the best that can be drawn, even if we stay in the music space. Instead, it is beginning to feel inevitable that GameStop, or other companies, will be become like modern day record stores: there to cater to the niche market of those that want CDs and vinyl, with all of the nostalgia that's as important for buyers as the product itself.

But it sure as hell won't be the GameStop of the last two decades.

Filed Under: consoles, digital delivery, retail, video games
Companies: gamestop

Sony May Just Be Loosening The Reins As Gaming Brings In A Plurality Of Its Revenue

from the money-games dept

Any trip down Techdirt's memory lane when it comes to Sony is not going to leave you with a good taste in your mouth. This is a company that has been almost comically protective of all things intellectual property, engaged in all manner of anti-consumer behavior, and is arguably most famous for either using an update to remove features from its gaming console that generated sales of that console or for installing rootkits on people's computers. When it comes to any positive stories about the company, in fact, they mostly have to do with the immense success Sony had in the most recent Console Wars with its PlayStation 4 device.

Positive results and gaming aren't a crosstab of coincidence for Sony, it seems. There are couple of converging stories about Sony, one dealing with its revenue and another with its plans for its gaming divisions opening up a bit, that point to positive developments. To set the stage, let's start with the fact that the video game industry is now the biggest revenue generator for Sony.

Sony’s full year corporate report was published over the weekend Australian time, and as always it covers Sony’s PlayStation division as well as the other units within its business. Naturally, the coronavirus was a big factor, with Sony estimating a ¥68.2 billion loss ($876.3 million) in operating income just from COVID-19.

But gaming has done well for Sony. The PlayStation business now generates more sales and operating income than any other part of Sony:

Now, it's worth noting that Sony's gaming revenue is actually down for 2019, but the percentage as revenue generator for the company is up. And, as noted above, gaming is now the single largest revenue generator of any market Sony is in. And what's really interesting in all of that is that it's happening while Sony has famously limited its own reach with walled gardens. PlayStation exclusives have been the norm wherever Sony can sign them. Sony's first-party games, many of them among the best that gaming has to offer, have of course been siloed on PlayStation consoles. For years, Sony limited PS4's remote play function to Sony Xperia phones that never broke ground in market share. Everything, it seemed, was designed to be as locked into Sony's walled garden as possible.

But we're starting to see signs that the company has recognized that it needs to change.

All that said, explicitly mentioning the potential for PC ports in its annual report is the latest sign that Sony continues to slowly loosen its tight, walled-garden approach to game hardware and software. In 2017, for instance, Sony expanded its PlayStation Now streaming service to work on Windows PCs as well as PS4 hardware. That service now has 2.2 million regular subscribers, Sony says, up significantly from the 1 million subscribers claimed last November.

In 2018, Sony finally opened PS4 titles to cross-platform online play with other consoles after years of public reluctance on that score. Then, earlier this year, Sony said MLB: The Show will come to non-PlayStation consoles as soon as 2021, after decades of PlayStation exclusivity.

It all speaks to a company that's more aware that "competition from online PC games and players from other industries is expected to continue to intensify," as it says in its annual report. Even as Sony pushes hard for the exclusive "speed, haptics, and sound" improvements of the upcoming PlayStation 5 this year, it is hedging its bets somewhat with support for non-Sony hardware as well.

If gaming is your best revenue generator, these moves only make sense. MLB The Show is fantastic; why should Sony only sell it to PlayStation owners? While Horizon: Zero Dawn took over three years to make it to the PC... it still made it. Why wouldn't Sony want to sell its game to PC gamers that may never want to buy a PlayStation, but would love to play some of the games previously exclusive to it?

It's long past time Sony teared the walls of its garden down. Let the revenue streams in. Increase availability of its products. Make more money.

The only surprising aspect of all of this is how much work it took to convince Sony that more money was good.

Filed Under: consoles, video games
Companies: sony

Retrospective: As Sony Clearly Wins This Generation's Console Wars, Let's Recall How It All Began

from the x-boned dept

In these modern times, it seems almost silly to say just how long ago 2013 feels. Six years is nearly an eternity in most respects these days, but when it comes to the video game industry, even an eternity feels like it falls short. I bring this up because 2013 is the year that both the Playstation 4 and Xbox One were released, kicking off the latest battle in a thirty year console war between Microsoft and Sony. Sony released a couple pieces of information over the past few weeks, both of which will be of interest to gamers. First, the Playstation 5 is on the way. Second, Sony released new lifetime shipping figures for the Playstation 4, noting that total shipments of the console are now over 102 million in total.

The PlayStation 5 might be on the horizon, but the PS4 continues its impressive run. As of September 30, Sony has shipped 102.8 million PlayStation 4 consoles, surpassing even the Nintendo Wii.

Sony announced the news in its most recent financial statements, revealing that 2.8 PlayStation 4s were moved in the last quarter. Twitter user ZhugeEX has been tracking the data, so you can see how the global console shipments stack up.

Well, it stacks up as the second best selling console of all time, actually. With what appears to be the crossing of the finish line in this generation's console wars, with the Xbox One and Nintendo Switch well behind Sony's numbers, it's a decent time to look at what happened. Interestingly, a peek down memory land here at Techdirt provides some of the context in these numbers.

We'll start with Nintendo. Many will point to the fact that Nintendo didn't release a console at the same time as Microsoft and Sony. The Wii came out in 2006 and shipped 101 million units, while the Switch came out in 2017 and has shipped 36 million units. The Wii was an obvious success, but its numbers are spread across 5-7 additional years compared with the PS4. The Switch, meanwhile, has been successful as well, but nothing at the level of Sony's current console. Much of this is explained by Nintendo's consoles being slightly more in a niche market compared with Sony's and Microsoft's. But part of the reason for that is the decidedly closed off, walled garden, anti-consumer approach Nintendo has taken with its consoles and intellectual property.

The Xbox One comparison is more meaningful, however. Here we have a competing console released at roughly the same time, while sharing a similar catalog of games (save exclusives), and sporting similar console capabilities. What explains Sony shipping roughly 60 million more PS4s than Microsoft shipped Xbox Ones?

The rollout of Microsoft's console, for starters. We did an entire series of posts on the Xbox rollout, even pre-release, and Microsoft's proposals and subsequent walk-backs for online requirements to play purchased games, plans to limit the ability to play used games on the console at all, and the strange requirement that the Kinect be bought with it, despite the paltry sum of games that bothered to use the Kinect at all. This paragraph sums up the chaos, all of which occurred in the course of less than a year:

It's been a relatively tough road for Microsoft's Xbox One, even as it's early in the console's life. You should recall that the console was initially designed to require some degree of online connectivity to work; a plan that was subsequently walked back after consumers revolted. It was the same for proposed limitations on used games, which caused similar outrage. The console was also supposed to not be fully operational without the bundled Kinect engaged, but that plan was also scrapped because customers hated the idea. Left in place were consumers questioning why they had to pay for the Kinect device at all, given the paltry sum of games that actually utilized it. Well, the trend continues, now that Microsoft has announced in an absolutely tone-deaf blog post that there will now be an Xbox One offering that comes sans Kinect. The post, laughably, is entitled "Delivering More Choices for Fans."

In the moment when a company was looking to hype its forthcoming console, this combination of "features" customers didn't want and the chaos that ensued with all the walk-backs had many, many customers that might have been interested in the Xbox instead shrugging and buying a Sony PS4 instead. It was the combination of tone-deaf plans and anti-consumer features that gave the public a sour taste even before the console release. And, with such a significant percentage of console sales occurring in the initial release window, that's a recipe for losing a console war.

It wasn't the only reason of course. Competitor that Microsoft might be, it's no secret that Sony is the dominant player. After all, 4 of the top 5 best selling consoles of all time are Sony products.

But there can be no doubt that Microsoft would have sold more units if not for its ill-fated, anti-consumer features, shoddy communication, and the fact that its chief competitor offered alternatives to both. With the PS5 on the way, you would assume Microsoft's next console will be announced shortly as well. Hopefully the company has learned its lesson.

Filed Under: console wars, consoles, playstation 4, video games, xbox
Companies: microsoft, nintendo, sony

Sony Released Its Playstation Classic Console In A Way That Makes It Eminently Hackable

from the wait-sony? dept

Gamers of a certain age will be very familiar with the insanity from roughly 2010 that was Sony's reaction to having its Playstation 3 console hacked to return functionality that Sony initially advertised and then rescinded via a firmware update. While PS3 owners cheered on the hack, as many of them loved the function that Sony took away, Sony instead began a full on legal war with the Geohot, the hobbyist who gave users what they wanted. The whole thing was a complete mess that made Sony look awful and ultimately resulted in the Playstation 4 of course not having the function that users wanted, and the console being much, much more locked down at release.

I'm going to take a moment again to remind you that this all occurred only roughly 8 years ago. Why? Well, because Sony recently released its Playstation Classic retro console... and apparently made it very, very easy to hack.

The PlayStation Classic was a great idea that was disappointingly executed. Not surprisingly, hackers have been hard at work trying to crack the novelty console as they’ve done already with Nintendo’s NES Classicand SNES Classic.

The job’s been made easier, the hackers claim, thanks to Sony reportedly housing the key to decoding the PlayStation Classic’s firmware on the device itself, rather than utilizing a private key held by Sony. The underlying code that runs on game console is encrypted to prevent people from tampering with it, but in this case the tools to unlock and start changing how the console operates were available to anyone who dug through the code by copying it onto a PC. As first reported by Ars Technica, console hacker yifanlu pointed it out on Twitter late last week in-between streaming his attempts to break open the console’s digital architecture on Twitch. So far they’ve been able to play unincluded PS1 games like Spyro using a thumb drive and are currently working on getting other emulators working on it as well.

Here again we see hackers enabling what gamers wanted out of their Playstation Classic devices, but which Sony failed to provide. The biggest disappointment in the Playstation Classic has been the short game library. By screwing around with the console, tinkerers can enable playing many, many more games. And, given that this is Sony we're talking about that just went through all of this with the PS3, you have to wonder just how much of this was done on purpose, and how much is Sony not having things buttoned up on their end.

“There really isn’t any security on the device at all,” yifanlu told Kotaku in an email. “Sony managed to accidentally include their firmware update private keys on every console.”

If that's true, you have to wonder if another round of stupid of the kind we saw with the PS3 is about to happen. Sony is notoriously protective of its hardware, often leading it down a litigious path. But if the company were to once again attack tinkerers and deprive users of useful features for its product, and did so after so willfully ignoring securing its consoles from this type of thing, that would nearly smack of a honeypot rather than Sony having any true gripe.

Filed Under: consoles, games, hacking, playstation classic, sony playstation
Companies: sony

Sony Decides That It Too Can Compete With Free With Its Own Retro Console

from the everyone-can dept

Remember that quaint mantra from a few years back, "You can't compete with free!" The misguided idea behind the quip was that if the public could get your product for free, typically in digital form via the internet, then you were sunk. Dunzo. Kaput. The problem with this thinking is that selling a product has always had to be about more than an infinitely reproducable digital file, making any claim that "you can't compete with free" exactly two words too long. And, of course, we've seen so many counterexamples in which people and companies very much compete with free, and in fact make a killing at it, so as to make this theory essentially dead. We recently touted the fact that Nintendo is barely able to keep its Nintendo NES Mini in stock as perhaps the ultimate example of this, given how pretty much every computer and smartphone can get all those same games and functions via emulators.

Well, it looks like others noticed this success Nintendo has had competing with free and have decided that they can do so as well. Sony has decided to jump into the retro console market with its Playstation Classic console, despite that it too has emulators available roughly everywhere.

It’ll be out on December 3 in the US, Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia, and includes games like Final Fantasy VII, Jumping Flash, Ridge Racer Type 4, Tekken 3, and Wild Arms. There’ll be 20 bundled titles in total, but those five are the only ones announced at the moment.

The PlayStation Classic will include two original PS1 controllers and a HDMI cable, and cost US$99.99 (€99.99 in Europe, AUD$150 in Australia).

And guess what? It's going to sell like crazy. And that's because the reason for buying one goes beyond simply wanting to play a Playstation game. Anyone wanting to do that could simply download one of many emulators and game files and have at it. You know, "free." But this console will compete with free the exact same way Nintendo did: by having a small, slick console that reeks of nostalgia and serves as a conversation piece, all while having the available ports and cords for a modern day television on which to play it.

Frankly, that's not exactly a ton of work to do to compete with free. There's no secret sauce. No magic formula. Just make what people want, don't make it laughably expensive, and reap the rewards.

Filed Under: compete with free, consoles, playstation, playstation classic
Companies: sony

Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

from the this-could-be-big dept

One of the many problems with DRM is its blanket nature. As well as locking down the work in question, it often causes all kinds of other, perfectly legal activities to be blocked as well -- something that the copyright industry seems quite untroubled by. Here's an example from Europe involving Nintendo (pdf):

Nintendo markets two types of systems for videogames: 'DS' portable consoles and 'Wii' fixed consoles. It installs a recognition system in the consoles, and an encrypted code on the physical housing system of videogames, which has the effect of preventing the use of illegal copies of videogames. Those technological protection [DRM] measures prevent games without a code from being launched on Nintendo equipment and prevent programs, games and more generally, multimedia content other than Nintendo's, from being used on the consoles.

That means that DRM is preventing users from accessing non-Nintendo games and other works that they have lawfully acquired. One company affected by this is PC Box, which sells "homebrews" -- applications from independent manufacturers -- the use of which requires the installation of software that circumvents Nintendo's DRM. As was to be expected, Nintendo is not happy about that, and so the Milan District Court has been asked to adjudicate:

Nintendo considers that PC Box equipment seeks principally to circumvent the technological protection measures of its games. PC Box considers that Nintendo's purpose is to prevent use of independent software intended to enable movies, videos and MP3 files to be read on the consoles, although that software does not constitute an illegal copy of videogames.

Aware that this raised an important question of law, the Milan judges asked the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU's highest court, to clarify how the European Directive on the harmonization of copyright applied in this case. The judgment has just been handed down; here's the key part:

The Court of Justice next states that the legal protection covers only the technological measures intended to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution, for which authorisation from the copyrightholder is required. That legal protection must respect the principle of proportionality without prohibiting devices or activities which have a commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent the technical protection for unlawful purposes.

The Court of Justice notes that the scope of legal protection of technical measures must not be assessed according to the use of consoles defined by the holder of copyright, but that rather it is necessary to examine the purpose of devices provided for the circumvention of protection measures, taking account, according to the circumstances at issue, of the use which third parties actually make of them.

Having made those important general points, the Court of Justice of the European Union then goes on to instruct the Milan court to consider specific issues, such as whether Nintendo could use alternative forms of DRM that allow other programs to be run, and whether PC Box's software is mainly used for legal or illegal purposes.

As well as being an eminently sensible ruling, it's potentially hugely important, because it establishes that in principle DRM may be circumvented, depending on the circumstances. It's one that is likely to be greeted with howls from the copyright industry, since it cuts right across its view that DRM is sacred, and can never be circumvented in any situation. It's refreshing to see Europe's top court adopting a more nuanced approach to copyright that recognizes that users have important rights too, and that they should not be obliged to put up with what copyrightholders impose upon them if that is disproportionate in its knock-on effects.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: circumvention, consoles, copyright, drm, european court of justice, homebrews, mod chips, video games
Companies: nintendo, pc box

Microsoft Capitulates, Removes Online DRM From Xbox One

from the customers-win dept

So, remember when the Xbox One release confused the hell out of everyone and then Microsoft confirmed a bunch of hated, needless restrictions on used games and internet connection requirements? Then there was that whole thing at E3 where the crux of Sony's presentation was, "Hey, at least we're not Microsoft?" The backlash, as you can imagine was immensely fierce, with pissed off gamers who know inherently how important the used game market is and how stupid and insulting online requirements are.

Well, Microsoft apparently now knows it too, as they have done a serious about-face on nearly every single one of these plans. Xbox chief Don Mattrick stated on the Xbox blog:

"An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games – After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.

Trade-in, lend, resell, gift, and rent disc based games just like you do today – There will be no limitations to using and sharing games, it will work just as it does today on Xbox 360."

So, all's well that ends well, right? Fans pushed back and Microsoft listened. Well, perhaps not. When you consider that the chief reason for the backlash was the obvious nature of restrictiveness and money-grabbing in Microsoft's plans, I expect gamers to not be assuaged by those plans being walked back in the aftermath. The company has made it quite clear what they think of their customers and where their priorities lie. Many jilted people won't be fooled by this new conciliatory tone.

There is a lesson to be learned here about how a company should treat its customers. Customers meaning the gamers, not the game publishers Microsoft seemed so focused on. I don't believe they have wiped the chalkboard clean without stain with this announcement.

Filed Under: consoles, drm, used games, video games, xbox, xbox one
Companies: microsoft

Sony At E3: Look How Unlike Microsoft We Are!

from the no-connection-required dept

It has been no secret that Microsoft's handling of the launch of their Xbox One console has been controversial at best and a complete debacle at worst. As rumors of mandatory internet connections and fees for playing used games made the unsteady transition to reality, dedicated fans of other consoles mobilized to make sure their voices were heard. Most substantial was the fanbase of the Sony Playstation, who made their wishes for a more traditional and open PS4 known. I had mentioned in that post that Sony in particular had a real opportunity on their hands, assuming they were willing to both stick up for their customers and take the issues against Microsoft head-on.

Well, to some extent, that's exactly what they did at this year's E3 convention, going out of their way to point out all the ways in which they are not doing things the Xbox-way.

During their Electronic Entertainment Expo press event, Sony Computer Entertainment of America president and CEO Jack Tretton says its PS4 will not restrict used games, nor will it require an online connection.

Tretton specifically noted the PS4 "won't stop working if you haven't authenticated within 24 hours," a jab at the Xbox One and its requirement to perform online checks of consoles.

Now, to be sure, this isn't a completely unambiguous stance in favor of its customers, but credit Sony for doing what many of our commenters thought they wouldn't: seeing an opportunity in sticking up for customers and running with it. Having said that, there are still many questions surrounding whether or not the Playstation platform will simply be agnostic with used games, leaving that decision instead up to the game developers and publishers. It might seem a better thing for Sony to simply say they won't allow the kind of used game pocket-picking that MIcrosoft is codifying, but that might be a bit too much to ask. After all, Sony needs developers for their platform, too. Besides, as long as it isn't Sony acting in an anti-consumer way, developers that might wish to be restrictive on used games can be judged on their own individual merits. In other words, we'll actually get to see what the market impact of anti-consumer behavior on used games is.

And if some of the reaction I've seen thus far is any indication, such as Sony Entertainment now being listed on Wikipedia's list of "burn centers in the United States" after they torched Microsoft at E3, developers might begin rethinking their plans.

Filed Under: consoles, drm, e3, online connections, ps4, used games, xbox one
Companies: microsoft, sony

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