Microsoft Apologizes For Cavalier 'Always-Online' DRM Tweets 236
Adam Orth, creative director of Microsoft Studios, on Thursday tweeted that "doesn't get" objections to DRM schemes that require always-on internet connection to play console games. An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft on Friday released an official statement regarding the tweets: 'We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers. We are very sorry if this offended anyone, however we have not made any announcements about our product roadmap, and have no further comment on this matter.'" I can't help reading those tweets in the voice of Sterling Archer.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Corp. Comm. (Score:5, Interesting)
So the Microsoft Studios Creative Director's views have no impact on what he does at work? He has nothing to do with Microsoft. Wow. Then why is he a director? These Microsoft Corp. Comm. people are more disconnected from reality than I expected.
By the way, the new Windows 360 Office for 2013 ( or whatever it is called ) is moving towards always on cloud connectivity. And directors at Microsoft are actually idiots who have no impact on product direction. Give me a break. First, fire the Creative Director for speaking the truth. Next fire the Microsoft Corp. Comm. for regurgitating canned responses that makes the company look dumb.
always-on DRM (Score:5, Interesting)
... Well, here's a thought: Not everybody has internet. I know this is shocking, but some people actually take their XBox, etc, on road trips, to friends houses, etc. Shocking, I know. So unless something really needs internet, it shouldn't have it because there are perfectly legitimate reasons beyond "zomg, piracy!" to not have internet. Secondly, always-on internet means when your servers crap, or you decide the game isn't popular enough, the people who paid for that game get screwed -- they can't play it anymore.
And for the second reason, I'll never buy a game that needs a DRM server to play. I play an MMO, and I can understand that the server is the game in that case, but unless you can make a compelling case that the game simply can't be played without it, I'm not buying it. Ever. And take a page from EA's playbook, Microsoft: Their stocks just took a big dive because of DRM and now one of your idiot employees is saying your company supports it. Do you want your stock prices to plunge too?
Re:Translation: (Score:2, Interesting)
What the hell are you talking about? Some Microsoft guy made some comments thorugh personal channels and you think they're "sacrificing" him for them as though this was some sort of official announcement they're recanting?
Re:always-on DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Archer? (Score:5, Interesting)
For me the biggest problem is the the fact that the games have a finite time after which they will not work. The servers will not be available forever and if I'm spending money on game I want to know that I'll still be able to play them 10 years, 20 years or even further in the future. I have games that I bought in the late 80s and early 90s that I still play, it stands to reason that if I buy games next generation I will want to play them again in the distant future, but that's not going to happen if "Always on" becomes a reality. Given a long enough time frame my having an internet connection is more guaranteed than MS supporting their server for the remainder of my lifespan.
This doesn't even take into consideration people like my friends who serve in the military, and play games in their down time despite not having access to broadband while deployed, or those friends who lost their jobs due to the economy and had to cancel their internet and TV service but kept their gaming consoles as a meager source of entertainment in an otherwise shitty period in their life.
Microsoft earned the lions share of my gaming budget the last two generations and if I were to receive similar gaming experiences in the next generation I have no problem continuing to spend money that way, but if they required an internet connection I will not be giving them any money what-so-ever. I have no interest in purchasing games with an expiration date.
Re:Corp. Comm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps he was speaking what HE wants to see. Microsoft Studios is Microsoft's first party games publisher - so he's speaking what he'd like to see in the Xbox. Which will probably be similar to what other people at EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. wants.
They want always-on DRM. They don't see the bigger picture. They run independent of Entertainment and Devices (who go under the Microsoft label). They don't speak for anyone's interest except their own as a game publisher.
Larry Hyrb ("Major Nelson") works for the Xbox division, so he knows what is probably in the next Xbox. And he also knows that division is having to balance a ton of competing interests - some publishers (like Microsoft Studios) will want always-on DRM. Some will want one-time codes. Others want an easy way to be indie. And then there's the other competing interests - the Online division wants web browsers, Bing, and other services in by default. The Windows group would want Windows Media Center extender.
So yes, the director is speaking frankly. Because he runs that group, which is pretty much isolated from the core Xbox team. Even more so at Microsoft because of the way it's run - Microsoft is a HEAVILY silo'd operation - the people from one team rarely speak with people from another team - and sometimes the lines of communications rise from the engineer through a half-dozen managers (probably a couple of steps below Ballmer), over to the counterpart in the other division, then down a half-dozen managers, to the responsible engineer. I've known people who got in trouble for trying to speak directly to their counterpart.
It's why the various divisions often have their own toolsets - Windows team have their own compilers and maintain their own compilation tools (and may pull now and again from the Visual Studio team but never are allowed to contribute nor ask about stuff like bugs). Likewise, the Xbox team probably have cloned a copy of the compilers as well and have inhouse people maintaining them as well (because the Xbox director would get a serious chewing out if they even asked a question about the compiler code - as far as the development tools team go - they've done Xbox a favor by giving them a code drop).
Fiefdoms, is probably the better word. And the Xbox team probably haven't decided how the DRM is supposed to work.
After all, the tweet was about why he felt always-on DRM was good and didn't see why people would care otherwise. The Xbox team simply said "we can't comment because we've not announced anything". It's likely yes, there will be the option. Or maybe it'll be like the Xbox is now - if you download it, the DRM license is for that console, or if you're signed into Xbox Live (the latter is "always on" as disconnecting will end the game).
At Microsoft, one hand literally does not know what the other hand is doing.
Re:The summary doesn't mention (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the new Xbox will require always on connection. Everyone who has any clue has known this for months.
For Microsoft, it is primarily a box to sell subscription services - XBox Live Gold - and act as a platform for things like Netflix. That is where the money is. To be the living room box that does everything.
While going for this goal, everyone at MS who know anything about games and what gamers want have already left. It started with the whole Kinect thing. Since then, Microsoft themselves have shipped ZERO Xbox 360 titles that were not either...
- Sequels to existing huge franchises (their lip service for "core gamers", ie. they keep funding production of games series proven to sell. Halo, Forza etc.)
- Kinect junk
For the new Xbox I fully expect their presentation to be...
- 25% about the hardware and how it is better than PS4 (spoiler; it won't be)
- 25% about how kinect is the best thing since sliced bread and showing of new titles that leverage the improved sensor. All of them will be crap.
- 25% about how the new UI seamlessly ties to Windows RT / Windows 8 / Windows phone (never mind that Xbox 720 won't have touch interface - but that doesn't matter, they'll make you use a crappy touch-optimized UI even with a controller)
- 15% about how the new Xbox will happily be your living room box for video
- 10% about some core games, most of which will be multiplatform ports. Oh, there will be new Halo because well, Xbox = Halo.
Every gamer will go either for PS4 or PC.
And for the record, I own Wii, Xbox 360, DS and PC. 360 had some good stuff early but the hardware was obsolete 2-3 years ago and all development of interesting games ceased around that time. I have never owned PS3. I still think PS4 will completely own this round because Sony seems to understand that it is all about games. games. games. If that works, they can then sell all kinds of other stuff, but if the core bit isn't done right, why bother.