Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Microsoft Social Networks XBox (Games) Games

Microsoft Game Director Adam Orth Resigns Following Xbox Comments 261

Posted by timothy
from the just-don't-get-it dept.
DavidGilbert99 writes "According to anonymous sources, Microsoft's game director Adam Orth has left the company following a series of comments on Twitter about the rumoured always-on aspect of the next generation Xbox console. It is still unclear if Orth left voluntarily or was pushed out but either way it's not good news for Microsoft." If you'd prefer your news without obnoxious auto-playing video ads (with sound!), IGN reports Orth's departure, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Game Director Adam Orth Resigns Following Xbox Comments

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xest (935314) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @08:58AM (#43421389)

    That's what I thought, I don't see how "either way it's not good news for Microsoft". If the employee was incompetent because he caused harm to the company then getting rid of him is damn good news because it means he can't do it again.

    I somewhat wonder if Microsoft have been having the always-on DRM debate internally and Adam Orth was in fact on the losing side of that internal discussion and took to Twitter to bitch about consumers who don't like always-on DRM simply because he lost the internal debate on the topic to the argument that consumers will fucking hate it.

    I say this because I'd be surprised if Microsoft do go the always on DRM route, I don't think even MS is that stupid, but time will tell I guess.

    Either way, good fucking riddance. This is one of those few things every once in a while Microsoft does that is absolutely right and that they absolutely shouldn't be faulted for. This guy was an idiot.

  • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RogueyWon (735973) * on Thursday April 11, 2013 @09:08AM (#43421437) Journal

    Indeed.

    I think the other point that dropped out of the discussion in this particular case (though plenty of people have brought it up elsewhere) is that people don't so much fear always-online requirements because they're worried their net connect might blip out (though that's a perfectly fair concern), but rather because they can see the thin end of the wedge approaching and recognise always-online as a direct underpinning for blocks on used games and rentals.

    MS may be getting a lot of pressure from game developers to implement those blocks, but to do so would be absolutely suicidal given customers have a choice to jump to an unrestricted PS4 instead.

  • by theurge14 (820596) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @09:21AM (#43421517)

    I'll be the first to admit I enjoy a bit of give and take with snarky comments on the Internet, but for a person in his position I though his condescending Twitter comments regarding people who dare to live in places such as Wisconsin or Virginia were a bit shocking in their arrogance. I can't say I'm surprised at all at Microsoft letting him go.

  • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vanderhoth (1582661) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @09:35AM (#43421665)
    Or since the next generation of consoles are x86 architecture anyway, just jump back to PC gaming. The whole reason for using the standard x86 is so developers can more easily port games between consoles and PCs. Why bother with a five to eight hundred dollar console with very few exclusive games that's going to allow MS or Sony to control your gaming library, username and passwords (Which they don't protect properly) and how and when you can you play, when you can get a PC that's going to be twice as good (spec wise), upgradeable as needed for a better experience, will have the same titles and more, allows you to do more than the console will ever allow (media server, indi development, emulator, video player, and much more) without jail breaking/hacking it and when all else fails after buying a game with a shitty DRM will allow you to download a working copy so you can play a game you paid for (Not that I've ever done that, but it's an option)?

    My personal opinion is the next generation of consoles is dead in the water. I only have a linux machine at home and with the availability of Steam and indi games, I've only turned my PS3 on in the last 10 months so my 2 year old could watch the Care Bears movie, which doesn't seem to be available on Netflix (build into my TV). I was surprised the PS3 even worked, it's one of the original consoles that had the OtherOS Feature. I was sure Sony would have bricked it by now in some update, which I don't have to worry about them doing on my PC.
  • Re:Pay for internet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xest (935314) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @10:03AM (#43421947)

    FWIW I started with a 360 and bought a PS3 later on, I was an XBox fanboy originally, but nowadays I could care less who "wins" a console battle (I guess I'm getting old).

    But now I do have both, now I am apathetic to fanboyism I do feel that objectively the 360 feels more polished, the controllers not only feel better to hold and use, but the PS3 buttons even just outright feel like they don't respond sometimes. There's a lot of awkward inconsistencies such as sometimes when you download a game from the store you get an unlock file, and others you get the full game, and other times you get random extra downloads on top, then it's non-obvious what files you can delete so you end up with these files that do nothing but you're unsure if it's safe to delete them. Patching is horrendous, I had to download many 10s of gigabytes of patches for the handful of games I bought such that on my connection (a mere 4mbps, but still double the recommended 2mbps minimum for modern consoles) I ended up spending my first two to three days of owning the system patching games. The sign up process to Sony online was brutal, the site kept going down and I desperately tried to recover an SOE account from years ago but apparently that's a different Sony online thing to the Playstation one and that made it all a bit of a pain. It's still not a bad console, and yes Microsoft's advertising on the 360 UI after you've paid £40 a year is annoying, and yes it costs £40 a year, but the 360 is just so much more of a pleasure to use, it's so much more polished, and you spend so much less time patching.

    All that ignores Sony's arrogance towards it's customers, but I bought mine after the Linux debacle, the removal of backwards compat. etc. so I knew exactly what I was buying (though that's subject to change given their history I guess).

    If the 360 never existed the PS3 would still be a decent console, and even with the 360 I've had many hours of enjoyment out of my PS3 as both a Bluray player and on games like the Little Big Planet series, the Killzone series, and the Uncharted series. But if I was doing it all again knowing what I know now, even with the RROD debacle, I'd most definitely still have bought the 360 first.

  • Re:The Question is: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TWiTfan (2887093) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @10:06AM (#43421969)

    It wouldn't surprise me to learn that one of the the reasons MS pushed the Xbox announcement back to May instead of April was because of this controversy, or to learn that there is a serious internal debate going on right now there over whether they should really go forward with the always-on requirement (their original plan) or to abandon it in light of this controversy and Sony's distancing themselves from the requirement on the PS4.

  • by wynterwynd (265580) on Thursday April 11, 2013 @11:46AM (#43422935)

    I'm going to jump in here and buck the hivemind by saying this may have been a case of Internet overreaction and mob persecution. This guy has said multiple times that this was a snarky banter between friends on Twitter, he just had the lack of foresight to make his feed private. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, considering the horrible things I sometimes say to provoke my friends.

    Would you want to be held accountable to your entire customer base for your snarky conversations with your friends? If you made some wholly inappropriate out of context comment while baiting/trolling your buddies, would you want the world to treat that as not only your actual stance, but that of your employer?

    Now before the nerd rage bubbles over, let me caveat:

    At best, the guy was at least a dumbass who didn't realize how connected his life was. In a position like that, even when he's talking with friends, he's talking with the Internet and cannot help but represent his job considering how many people it affects. Games are serious business on the Intertron, and you flick the nose of your customers at your peril.

    At worst, he was the arrogant douche the internet proclaims him to be and sold himself on his company's own Kool-Aid, which is a terrible mistake in any profession and he paid the price.

    I think it's good for Microsoft that this issue was dragged out into the spotlight before the console launched - and I think it's tragic that it cost Adam a career. Let this be a lesson for people in high-profile game industry positions - you are NEVER just talking to one person on the Internet, and the public eye never blinks.

Forty two.

Working...