[Afternoon Opinion] The problem with “always-online”, and why everyone is missing the point

---

It’s not directly related to Nintendo, but I’m guessing
it’s on your guys’ mind either which way.

Author: Austin

NintendoEverything is, quite obviously, a Nintendo-centric website. We deal in the happenings over at the Big N– occasionally branching out and discussing things that are going on industry-wide– but by and large we are happy to keep concerned only with the things that our favorite developer and publisher does. It’s more than enough to keep someone busy for months on end after all, and usually the topics that are being discussed on a grander scale (downloadable content, violence in video games, etc) don’t affect “us” too much, because Nintendo is usually “behind the times” when it comes to keeping up with trends.

Ah, but today, something has come up that I think is worth discussing despite that fact: This idea of “always-online”. This concept that my console, game, or PC must be connected to the internet at all times in order to play the games I want to play, or use the services I want to use. There are two arguments being made:

1) “Always-online is the future. It’s an advancement in technology that we have to get with in order for the gaming industry to move forward.”

2) “But what if I don’t have a stable internet connection? It’s ridiculous that I wouldn’t be able to play games because of technical hiccups.”

Personally, I think both of these arguments are a load of things-that-are-bad-arguments.

My reasoning is as follows:

1) It’s NOT an advancement in technology to force users to be constantly connected.

2) Not having a stable internet connection and complaining that your games won’t work as well is similar to having dial-up and complaining you can’t play Call of Duty online. It’s just silly.

No, the argument to be made against always-online is significantly simpler than any of these edge case mumbo-jumbo-trash arguments. The justification in the negative should simply be that forcing always online adds absolutely nothing over simply making it optional. There is no reason on the side of the user, at all, that you should have to force someone to be connected.

Let me explain why:

The list of things that always-online has added to games so far pretty much boils down to social connectivity. In a few rare cases you can get superfluous “additions” to gameplay such as Nintendo does with SpotPass on 3DS (which is not forced, but still applicable), but by and large– on the user-end of things– it’s based around forcing players to be social with one another. That is the “bonus” you get for being connected to the internet constantly.

I put “bonus” in quotes to make it seem like it’s not much a bonus, but that’s not totally fair: There is something to be said for being social, for getting nice little trinket additions to gameplay, and for getting updates downloaded when you’re not even using a device. But here’s a question for those trying to force always-online upon gamers:

If the bonuses you give us for being constantly connected to the internet are so desirable, why do you need to force it on us? Won’t we want to be constantly connected out of our own eagerness to use these “great new features” that such a connection would offer?

And this is right where the argument in favor of always-online falls apart. They tell us that having a constant connection to the internet will make our experience so much better, and yet they refuse to make it optional. If a guy on the street came up to you and said “Hey, I’m giving you all this free food and you have to take it! But you shouldn’t mind because it’s free food!”, wouldn’t you be somewhat suspicious? Why is he giving you this food? Is it poisonous? Did he steal it? The fact that he’s forcing it on you creates a slew of worrisome questions.

I realize the analogy is a bit silly, but I think you get the point. Why won’t they give us a choice if the benefits we would receive are so great? Apple doesn’t force me to be constantly connected with my Macbook, but I choose to be constantly connected because I can get updates and notifications about things I care for. It’s useful.

So this begs the honest question: Why are they gradually forcing us into always-online?

Frankly, the reasoning is a little bit obvious at this point: Piracy prevention, used game sales prevention, tracking what you buy and when you buy it, tracking your playing habits, and being able to advertise to you and pass it off as a favor. They’re trying to make money in ways that are both dishonest and– at risk of sounding somewhat theatrical– gluttonous. They are not trying to help us by offering cool features– they are playing up the importance of “cool new features” to cover up the fact that they want more money.

As one more analogous nail in the coffin, think back to the last time you installed a brand new copy of Windows Vista. Do you remember what one of the most annoying things about Vista (and I suppose many operating systems in general) was? It forced you to install a bunch of applications that they swore were there to help you– that they swore were “for your own good”– But really it was just a way to try and increase the userbase for their crappy programs and make more money. Simple as that.

So at its core, the argument against always-online does not– and absolutely should not– be centered around “but what if I lose my internet connection?”. That’s an argument easily dismantled and one that ultimately has very little clout when given extensive thought. No, the argument against ‘always-online’ needs to be “But why won’t you give me a choice?”. That is the argument that they do not want us making, because it’s the one they can’t defend against without sounding like a load of PR.

The end.