Google+

Would we be ready for an always-on Xbox?

Why would Microsoft do this again?

So, to recap: Broadband internet is still far from a universal thing. Even in some Xbox markets where broadband is available, it may not be strong and fast enough for families and/or people with many connected devices to support an always-on machine. Its owners might have to plan more carefully around data caps. Some people would need to take on new monthly payments to get the necessary quality of internet. Lots of people play online all the time now and would probably be fine, but many of them still don't enjoy consistently smooth experiences.

If the internet ever went out at an always-on Xbox owner's house, they might not be able to use the console. If something ever tampered with Microsoft's servers and infrastructure, they might not be able to use the console. (Remember this?) As it stands right now, millions of people across the globe physically can't get broadband internet and thus would not be able to use the console. Microsoft might not be looking to sell an Xbox to these people in the first place, but it'd undoubtedly be limiting its potential consumer base by default.

Would we be ready for an always-on Xbox? Technically, many of us would, especially those who currently game online with any regularity. But a significant number of current Xbox owners wouldn't, and an even larger number of non-Xbox owners would struggle even if they wanted to jump onboard.

So why would anyone want to do this again?

Well, remember, we're only speculating here. But as we noted in our list of outstanding Xbox Infinity questions, the most common assumption is that an always-on console would benefit game developers and publishers more than anyone else. Always-on tech allows for persistent online authentication and other such forms of DRM, which more than a few companies consider a good defense against pirates and used-game sales. The effectiveness of DRM has been debated countless times over the years, but in general many industry types still believe that it's an effective-enough way to get as much of a game's revenue into the hands of the people who made it.

Of course, there are countless consumers who would disagree and say that they've suffered through poorly connected games for no reason other than DRM. In fact, the biggest problem an always-on Xbox would probably face has nothing to do with broadband adoption or latency issues; it's the wave of consumer anger that would surface from a relatively small but very vocal group of staunch anti-always-on advocates. The saga of Adam Orth shows just how much of a public relations nightmare an always-on machine could be.

Either way, an always-on DRM console would be unprecedented. It would lay the framework for any studio that wanted to enable authentication policies to do so. But, as plenty of developers are quick to argue, making a game "always-on" doesn't necessarily mean that its games would have to support DRM policies.

"In and of itself, just being always-on is not a giant panacea for piracy or used games. A second shoe would need to drop," says Nick Beliaeff, SVP of development at Defiance developer Trion Worlds. For those who aren't aware, Defiance is an always-on, subscription-free MMO that launched on both consoles and PCs last month.

"For example, physical retail as a source for new games would have to go to zero," he continues. "Buying 100 percent digital where the console first-party knows for a surety whether a player bought something or not is one way to stop piracy or used game sales. Assuming greater than zero percent retail, if a disc does not also have a redemption code that has to be entered, piracy is still relatively straightforward. A console being always-on by itself without a second step really does not move the needle."

Instead, while Beliaeff firmly believes that offline gaming "will not, and should not, go away," he does think that an always-on machine could benefit players by challenging developers to step outside of their "normal box-product-only comfort zone."

"I am a big fan of console games reinforcing things that consoles do well and staying away from their weaknesses," he says. "I would hope that developers would be inspired by the console being always-on to take full advantage of that.

"Just own the boss battle in record time? Press a button and upload to YouTube. Tired of the soundtrack? Stream in your own music from any internet source. Need a new map? Download one from the community. I also think it is a great foundational step for building and then maintaining community. Make friends, carry that outside of the console by linking with Facebook or the like."

Sony has already said that it will be utilizing similar features in its PS4, so it may not be such a surprise to see Microsoft encourage its developers to do the same. Nevertheless, Beliaeff believes that forcing always-on onto everyone would be an unwise move.

"Just because the console is always-on does not mean every game has to make use of it," he notes. "If you are great at making immersive solo play games, keep doing what you are great at and do not let the always-on feature mess you up. It is an option to support, I think a great option to support, but not a mandate."

Akamai gaming analyst Kris Alexander notes that an ideal always-on console could further benefit consumers by letting them bypass the potentially slow download times that come with connecting to faraway servers. Instead of forcing your console to connect to wherever Microsoft's servers are, he posits, the interconnectedness of always-on consoles could let them download game updates and other such content through each other.

Even if an always-on Xbox couldn't give players that much luxury, it would be more closely aligned with how technology has evolved since the Xbox 360 was introduced almost a decade ago. Always-on tech may not be accepted in gaming yet, but it's hard to deny the impact it has had on countless other industries already. (Lest it not be said, this article you're reading right now was written using the always-on Google Docs.) An always-on Xbox would undoubtedly be a more "modern" machine--one that might not feel so dated in 10 years if the world's internet continues to improve. For some developers that are working with dated hardware today, this may even sound refreshing.

"Current-gen consoles are 6-7 years old," notes Beliaeff. "That is just scary. Why I like the console being always-on is that this now becomes the de facto standard and there will be no little code gremlins hiding out. The experience will be smooth for everyone. That is a big win and, frankly, a step in the right direction. The internet becomes more ubiquitous in our lives on a daily basis. Next-gen consoles should be forward thinking in its technology and capability, not worried about the current lowest common denominator."

So... this is happening, isn't it?

Not necessarily--we'll possibly find out in a few days. But Microsoft isn't stupid. It sees how omnipresent the internet is becoming in everything, and it probably wants to get the Xbox aboard that train ahead time. Of course, it knows that many in the industry aren't big fans of piracy and used games either.

Plus, for all the consumer outrage that surrounded always-on games like Diablo III and SimCity, it realizes that millions of people bought them anyway. Because let's face it: Gamers will buy games that excite them. (Even when they shouldn't.) If the next Xbox puts out must-have software, people will get it, always-on anger be damned.

But as we've shown, the internet's perceived ubiquity is still far from, well, ubiquitous. And for some developers, eliminating consumers who physically can't get broadband from the equation entirely would be a disheartening move.

"Of course, a lot of this is up to the implementation," says Rami Ismail, one half of Ridiculous Fishing developer Vlambeer, about Microsoft's possible always-on aspirations. "Steam is 'always-on' and its offline mode is a reasonable compromise. In general, we wouldn't be all that happy with that. For Jan Willem [Nijman, the other half of the studio], it would be a dealbreaker--he doesn't even have an internet connection at his place. As long as there is no way to make sure not a single gamer gets left out due to a restriction like that, we're not going to be supporting that."

Phil Tibitoski, president of Octodad: Dadliest Catch developer Young Horses, echoes similar sentiments. When it comes to the DRM debate, he finds that a strictly always-on console wouldn't make much of a difference to would-be pirates of his games either way.

"We would be less likely to work with a system that used always-on DRM, because in principle alone we don't agree with it," Tibitoski says. "I believe that if someone wants to buy our game and we present them with highly accessible and low-effort ways to do so then they'll buy it. The more steps you create between a player seeing something they like and being able to buy/play it, the less likely they are to ever pay for it.

"The players who do pirate our game are people who are unlikely to have ever bought it in the first place. It's a reality that isn't really worth worrying about when we have much more important things to do, like making games."

Even if going always-on becomes a wise move for Microsoft in the long term, it could still put a notable amount of pressure on the company to maintain its infrastructure, provide quality customer service, and other constant requirements for a worldwide service. As Beliaeff notes, there'd be no such thing as an "optimal downtime" for a global, always-on Xbox if Microsoft needed to implement updates or perform maintenance. It would feasibly take a lot of work to keep everyone connected at all times.

"In the end, I think we cannot lose sight that if you have an always-on game like Defiance, or an always-on console, at that point you are committed to providing a 24/7 service and that requires a fundamental mentality switch in how you deal with your players," Beliaeff says.

"If you are communicative about what you are doing and why, people will embrace you. If you lag at communication, try and hide or gloss over facts, etc., players will vilify you. I do think a successful switch to always-on will lead to better service for players overall, though."

But even with all these presumed requirements, worrisome internet statistics and mixed signals, the success of an always-on Xbox is going to come down to how consumers feel. Plenty have bought always-on games in the past. Many have enjoyed them. And all the trends point to online services becoming more prevalent where the Xbox is popular. But as Tibitoski explains, those who don't want to see an always-on future can cast a powerful vote with their wallets.

"Really if you are that against something like this, or DRM, then do not buy it. It's as simple as that. You can vote with your disposable income and put it towards things you do support."

Topics

DRM Xbox 720

We Recommend By ZergNet

28 comments

  • StrayGator - May 20, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    Why is this article featured on Penny Arcade Report and not, say, Top 7 worst jobs for NPCs?
  • Hanover - May 19, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    MS already stated that always on would be at the discretion of the game publishers. Obviously the professional game journalists at Games Radar haven't been doing their homework.
  • Rowdie - May 19, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    It just really feels irresponsible to be feeding craziness. "Always on, Always Connected" is not in anyway if you don't have great internet connection the system won't work. It doesn't mean draconian DRM. Always on, is simply that, it doesn't go into a full powered down state. This is good because that means it'll boot faster. That's always talked about as a great thing for other devices. We rarely shut out phones off. We don't shut down our cable boxes. I can't remember the last time I turned my computer off. Probably some vacation that took over a week. When you combine always on with always connected you get updates of all sorts pushed down. First they can do this when the internet isn't a busy a bonus for the whole world, and you no longer have to wait for these things when you want to play. That's brilliant. Poor PS3 owners cringed at every update. While it wasn't nearly as bad on the 360 getting rid of that wait all together would be really welcome. Again, now where does this indicate you can't play a local game if you don't have a connection. Honestly, journalist should be calling BS on this hysteria not feeding it. The article contending that because the box would always be on and connected means you need to consider it as if you had another high use app running constantly is irresponsible at best. It's not busy sucking up bandwidth just sitting there, in a sleep state. All that bandwidth research would have been a lot better off discussion a rumors that aren't full of FUD. Like the miniXbox. Now you can start talking about playing a multiplayer game on your console, streaming some netflix to your old 360 and reading the lates Gamesradar article on your minixbox and what kind of bandwidth that would take. IDK maybe talk to your IT guy and give folks some pointers on how to set up their router for optimal performance. Maybe warn them about that old laptop with the wifi b adapter crushing their N network, Pull the wire people.
  • Rowdie - May 20, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    Yeah, to get people to riot and or slaughter their fellow man is a good reason to feed hysteria. The system is going to want to connect. It's going be be connected if it can. You mean letting the publishers have some kind of DRM like they do on open platforms? No one minds that on PC. In fact most voices have been in favor of consoles being more open and letting publishers have more freedom to do what they want. They aren't down that road at all. There is no, it won't work if it's not connected. That's all FUD.
  • ParagonT - May 20, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    Agreed. Its just opening the doors to things that I believe will be problems in the future. Just because people are content with it for other systems (...) doesn't mean that its perfectly fine with me.
  • assedo1 - May 19, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    providers often deceiving promises 100MB, and give 50-60
  • sandplasma - May 19, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    Stop feeding these stupid rumors, Sony confirmed that they arent going this route and you can be 100% sure that the competition isnt either.
  • FireIceEarth - May 19, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    My main concern with all these figures for internet speeds is (in the UK at least) there is *always* a *massive* discrepancy between what you pay for and what you get; I've had to move home for a post-grad MSc, my parents live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, and are forced (as it's the lowest available) to pay for 8 Mbps broadband. Is this the figure I'd be quoted for? If I run a speed-test then it comes out at 1.1 Mbps, but if I actually download something from Steam then it comes in at a staggering average download speed of 100 Kbps! 100 KILOBYTES PER SECOND! What you pay for vs what you get could mean that the numbers are even worse than you think.
  • ParagonT - May 20, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    I think the maximum Mbps in my area used to be a whopping 3 Mbps. It just recently bumped up to 6 Mbps a couple of years ago. So if you were getting what you payed for hypothetically, I would be totally jelly of you. But I feel for ya, my friends parents had been screwed for over 10 years by the only available broadband service in our area, Windstream, because they were getting a lower tier of bandwidth than they were paying for. Bless her heart, but in her lapse of judgement she took the 100 dollars worth of credit (bribe) instead of pressing charges. My college only offers a whopping 10 Mbps. Here in the great state of Kentucky, we take pride in our technological advancements and services. /sarcasm
  • ShadowOps117 - May 19, 2013 6:01 a.m.

    I do not even have Xbox Live. Much less a wireless network. No Xbox for me then.
  • MightyWumbo - May 18, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    so it looks like ill be getting a ps4 and maybe a wii u if they make a super smash bros console edition!
  • codystovall - May 18, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    I dont have online sooooo.......
  • StrayGator - May 18, 2013 2:42 a.m.

    and suddenly I think: you know how a seemingly single product have few variants? Samsung galaxy Sx phones are notorious for featuring different hardware / connectivity options for different parts of the world. It's also common in guitars (i.e. strats/teles made with ash/alder bodies, whatever's cheaper at the time). if MS will go a similar route, we might see great demand for import consoles from outh america / east eu.
  • Shinn - May 18, 2013 1:40 a.m.

    I live in New Zealand, so no.
  • imagremlin - May 17, 2013 11:41 p.m.

    Can anyone describe a scenario where an constant connection is required for an offline game? I can't see any, and that's the kind of game I primarily play. If the console insists on using my connection, I need to know what for, and at the end of the day, I can never be sure of what the heck its doing. Is it checking that I'm not stealing the software? Is it reporting on what I play, when and how? Whatever it is, it's not doing anything for me, it's doing something for the publishers or for Microsoft. I'm not comfortable with that, I cannot be. I'm a console player, I own every single console since the PS1. If the NextBox is always online, it will be the first console I'm not buying.
  • einhazard - May 17, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    I grew up in the country in western MN, and up until just a couple years ago, people were still left to one internet choice: Dial-Up. The idea of a always-on (or sometimes-on) console just doesn't appeal to me. Granted, I live somewhere with good internet now, but America has a lot of open space between the coasts, and I feel like a lot of gamers would get screwed out of playing new stuff due to the fact that companies just flat-out will not run cable to where they live. I want to be able to take a console home and show my parents (you may laugh, but my dad loves seeing the new games), and if I can't do that, it's a personal disappointment. I may be among the minority that doesn't care about uploading stuff to YouTube and Facebook or making customer playlists for soundtracks on the fly, but that's because I want to game for the sake of gaming, not for the bells and whistles. I dunno. Maybe I'm just getting old.

Showing 1-20 of 28 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.