Before you punch through your computer screen in a blind rage, let me explain myself. I want you to take a second and think, really think, about the last time you were without internet for an extended period of time. And by "extended period of time" I mean several days. Being out for a couple of hours doesn't really count because hey, even the power goes out every now and then. Now, exclude extra-ordinary circumstances such as natural disasters and moving house. For anyone tech-savy enough to be reading this blog, it seems completely unfathomable to simply be without the internet.
I'm going to say something that is going to make some of you foam at the mouth. Orth was right. He may have been a dick about it, and probably should have kept his mouth shut considering his position at Microsoft, but his basic argument was spot-on. Always-online is not a big deal, and do you know why? Because as loud and angry as the vocal minority that opposes it is, they don't actually account for diddly squat. The percentage of players that have legitimate complaints about always-online (they live in an area with poor or no internet coverage) are so minuscule that the publishers don't really care about them. And it turns out those people themselves don't really care either. Let's look at some examples.
So surely, with what you have been led to believe about the internet's intense hatred of always-online, this situation should lead to a complete boycott of the game in Australia. Right? Wrong. World of Warcraft sold quite well in Australia, and even managed to break the top ten in sales whenever an expansion was released. Furthermore, Australians make up for such a minuscule portion of Blizzard's overall profit margin, that they could probably ban all of us completely and it wouldn't make too big a dent. To put things into perspective, the total population of Australia is about the same as the population of Texas.
Another Blizzard example is Diablo III. 'Always-online? I will never buy this!' they said. 'No LAN play = no purchase' they threatened. "Starcraft II being always-online was the last straw, I will never buy a Blizzard game again," they swore. Diablo III was the fastest selling PC game of all time. Need I say more?
Even Steam, produced by Valve, who can "do no wrong" in the eyes of the internet, is actually already pretty-much "always-online", and most people don't even realize it. Have you tried Steam's offline mode recently? It's very iffy at best. Games won't run unless properly updated, the vast majority of features are disabled, save games won't sync properly, and it just makes for an overall inferior experience. Sometimes it will just refuse to work entirely. Yet, I never hear anyone every complain about Steam's offline mode, apart from the occasional "oh yeah, that sucks." Steam is designed to be always-online, with the offline mode simply being included as a "failsafe."
Always-online should be a feature, not a deterrent. It enhances the gaming experience by ensuring that you are constantly up-to-date, can instantly join your friends games, can access your console from outside of your home, and can partake in many community features. It also allows developers to do cool shit like this "secret multiplayer" the WatchDogs devs recently revealed. This whole debacle reminds me of how people used to think gaming "achievements" were stupid, detracted from the game, and would never catch on. These days, it's almost impossible to find a game without them.
Lastly, Microsoft is not stupid, and that is why they have been incredibly tight-lipped (and why Orth was given the sack for running his mouth before their PR damage control could step in). We still don't know exactly what "always-online" even means, and are yet to hear Microsoft's explanation, which I'm sure will do its best to spin it in as much of a positive light as possible. They would not be doing this if they didn't think it would work. I would not be surprised if it had an offline "failsafe" like Steam does, or if it only has to "check in" every hour or so. It will probably require a very minimal amount of bandwidth meaning even those with shitty connections will be completely unaffected. I would not be surprised if singleplayer games won't actually require you to be "always-on."
While the voices opposing always-online are still loud, with every iteration of the technology they get softer and softer. There are a lot misconceptions about what always-online actually means, which Microsoft should clear up at its event. People seem to think that it will require a constant 100mb/s upload that will check in every three seconds, and if it doesn't detect an internet connection, will shut your console down (and self-destruct). What you should know is that always-online is here to stay, and will become increasingly more common in the future, so you can either jump up and down in anger, or you can take steps to prepare for it.
And hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the next generation Xbox is when we all rise up and say "no" to our always-online overlords, causing the console to fail and forcing the technology back a few more years. This is all just one man's opinion on how, and why, events will unfold.
-Steven "The Taco Man" Bogos
Thoughts expressed in this article are entirely my own, and are in no way associated with or representative of any publications I work for.
Please direct comments/suggestions/hate mail/death threats to the comments section below, or personally to me at bogos.steven@gmail.com.
