If only we didn't already have that stuff in my house and this is after we've got a load of devices wired up! If only we're not already stretching the Internet so that everyone complains about how slow it is, so adding more devices wouldn't be that good for our speed and regular disconnects (and we already pay for the best web that's on the market in my area so it's not like we can upgrade).

I agree that always-on is the future, but I think that it should happen because it provides utility for the customer. As it stands it's usually because it provides a perceived benefit to the investor's pocketbooks because it ostensibly prevents piracy and the industry's myopia surrounding piracy is an astonishing testament of ignorance and short-term thinking.

Consoles aren't like a PC where you can just alt-tab to chat or experience Steve piling on because he thinks someone scored a hit on you which he himself will never manage; they've got to provide something else for always-on to be a good deal for the people actually buying the product. If you look at a game like Spore, whatever all its other flaws, that's a case where always-on made a good deal of sense because one of the game's most fundamental aspects and selling points was the fact that so much of what you saw was user-created phalluses content. What good does it do me that Diablo 3 is always online? Yes it sold a lot, but it was in spite of that, not because of it. I'm not trying to argue that nobody ever accepts always online, or that a game is doomed to be a financial failure due to it, I'm arguing that it's reasonable to expect a game be playable when you buy it and not when the servers are finally working properly, and I'm arguing that if something doesn't benefit the player then it's a pretty questionable addition.