Okay, I'll get a couple things outta the way:
- If I get a PS4, it'll be to play those games on Vita.
- When I get a Wii U, it'll be to play Mario rehashes and Smash
- I have zero plans to get an Xbox One
-- I think it'll probably be the most successful console this generation, and people are seriously underestimating how ridiculously brilliant that UI looks. It makes the competition look like Smart TVs.
-- I don't even really think that their setup is bad. I'm just clarifying here why I'll never hop on myself.
Okay, I'm only jotting this down because I'm getting really tired of seeing the discussion fall to:
"Well not everyone has a great internet connection"
"What about our soldiers?"
"What if I need to sell my games?"
"How is it any different from Steam?"
And I hate this direction because it's easy to come up with interim solutions, and it detours the most glaring issue:
The DRM scheme the Xbox One is using for games is a bad idea, and it serves no purpose.
So let's do this categorically.
Number One: It's not about how good your internet connection is. I could live in a fucking Tier 1 datacenter and it wouldn't matter. We could have a magical wireless internet that worked in the center of the earth and this would STILL be a bad idea.
Number Two: It's nothing like Steam. We accept Steam's DRM requirement of being occassionally connected because it's on a PC. It's essentially an open system. You connect a USB drive, or a memory card, or some wacky SSH/FTP mount, and it's storage. You can copy anything to that storage. There's nothing stopping you from moving bits from point A to point B under any and all circumstances. Keeping you from making bootleg copies of a purchased program is a viable challenge. Consoles aren't working in that ecosystem. This problem doesn't exist in that world; they're completely closed off to prodding. They have copy protection that every non-interactive entertainment industry has wet dreams about. THEY DO NOT NEED TO PHONE HOME TO KEEP CONTENT SAFE FROM PIRACY.
Number Three: "Always-On" internet connectivity is a great thing. It's a fantastic idea. "Required-On" connectivity is pointless. Always-On means that you can build a content that has your games patched before you get home. It means your inbox will always be up to date. It means you can get instant access to impending developments as they happen. NONE of these features logically transition to a situation where a lack of connection breaks all locally stored content, and it's not really okay to act like they do.
Bonus Example: iPhones and Android phones COME with the internet. When you buy one, you buy a service plan that, 99.99% of the time, includes a data plan. Internet access is intrinsic to nearly EVERYTHING that those devices do, and somehow there is not a SINGLE one of these devices on the planet whose apps, books, photos, music and/or movies saved internally suddenly lock themselves away from you if that connection (or their servers) disappears for ANY length of time.
In finale, the core problem is better explained by paraphrasing Penny Arcade:
The moment they decide it's not worth it anymore your entire fucking library will evaporate.
(
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/05/13)
The last device that had this requirement was DIVX. Joke about its failures, but some people did purchase DIVX movies, and none of those purchases exist anymore.
Time to go grandiose and anvilicious. At the end of the day, these things are art. They are an art form, and this setup has been engineered to destroy our ability, as a SOCIETY to preserve it. And for what? It's not even to prevent piracy; they solved that problem over six years ago. It's to circumvent first sale doctrine.
If you don't see that as disgusting at its core, I'm not sure what else I can tell you.
Topic: XB1 : It's not about how good your internet connection is (Read 2064 times)
