Being the first of the next-gen consoles, are you worried that horrible DRM schemes will become prevalent?

I'm talking things like server activations, always-online games etc.

I wouldn't expect Nintendo to go ahead and implement something like that, but it may be possible that third parties (I'm looking at you, Ubisoft and EA) will try something of the sort.

Thoughts?

I'm more worried about region-locking myself.

Well, that too, but I think at this stage we have to accept that as a given (unfortunately, it's a ridiculously anti-consumer practice, although not on the same level as some DRM schemes).

I'm hoping Nintendo pulls a Microsoft and lets it be up to the publisher. Anyways, the "always online" thing is stupid. Nintendo shouldn't allow that, especially after the Wii's online rate. I'd be very surprised if they let EA or anyone else do such a thing.

I'd also be hoping that Nintendo puts their foot down and doesn't allow it. If they are against it but let it be up to the publisher, I can guarantee that we'll see some form of intrusive DRM being implemented if at all possible. Look at the PC - I've been really reluctant to purchase anything on it in the last few years.

I hear you man, I'm still ticked I can't sell the Orange Box despite having a boxed copy of it just because Steam codes only work once and there's no way to trade away games. In fact, there are a bunch of Steam games I'd love to get rid of, but can't. Because of that, I'm no longer buying anything on PC if I can help it. Then there's the "always online" games, which sucks bigtime. Other things like server activations and stuff I'll let slide, but that is something that I cannot forgive. It takes away choice from the players, and that just isn't cool, man.

Feeling like a noob...what's DRM?

Didn't Witcher 2 already prove how counter productive to stopping piracy DRM is?

Digital Rights Management. It's a broad classification that includes things such as encryption to prevent unauthorised copying of media, but in recent years - with the proliferation of broadband internet - it has become a lot more insidious, with requirements such as authenticating with an online server before you're allowed to install a game, or requiring your game to be connected to a remote server the whole time you're playing it.

I think, currently, it's a phenomenon found mainly on the PC, but I'm betting publishers will get it on consoles as soon as they can. Many, many problems are caused by DRM (Google Bioshock, Diablo III for some games, or Starforce, Securom etc. for some technologies).

@kkslider: Yeah, I really applaud CDProjekt for stripping the DRM out of the Witcher II. It shouldn't have been there in the first place, but they've outdone themselves by removing it and then giving away TONS of content that any other publisher would sell as DLC. It reminds me of the old days of PC gaming, when patches did more than just fix bugs - you'd often get map packs, extra game modes, extra units (for RTS games) and the like, all for nothing.

whatever they do, rest assured that Nintendo will do it differently. They're a gaming company, not a multi-media empire with lots of conflicting interests.

I'm not a big fan of DRM. Assassin's Creed 2 PC/Mac and Diablo III are games I own and the latter I'm disappointed in because I can't stand server problems and lag when I want to play alone in single player.. I doubt Nintendo would pull such a stunt. There's just no need to. And seeing how 3DS' security is really top notch, there's no need to do DRM to prevent piracy.

Of course, they could make some other excuse...

No to always online games.

Not really.

Only thing close to this is EA hosting their games on their own servers instead of using Microsoft's. Was annoying when. Forging went down and I couldn't play mass effect 3 multiplayer e en though live was up.

Also what's wrong with online always games?

Not everyone is always online. A lot of people in the states still don't have Wi-Fi, for instance, and some people like to play their games when their internet isn't working.

If they ever decide to stop the server, you are up a creek without a paddle.

I assume online only is for the multiplayer component.

Not always.
Prince of Persia the forgotten sands required you to always be online.
You couldn't progress otherwise.
Thankfully something happened which stuck it to the man.

It's not. Of course it isn't. That wouldn't even make sense, since obviously you'd have to be online to play play online. Online-only refers to the games that require you to be online even when you're playing the singleplayer. It's awful. I try to avoid being online when I play singleplayer games.

As Twilight said, not only is it annoying and unnecessary to have to be always online (or even have to activate games via an online server), when (not if) the company takes down their servers say goodbye to your game.

I can't believe consumers are so willing to run with it. It's what annoys me about a large fraction of the gaming community. Take Diablo III for example - there was a lot of bitching and moaning, talks of boycotts etc. when it was revealed that D3 would be an online-only game, and what happens? It sets the record for the fastest-selling PC game ever.

$%&*ing hell.

Requiring online all the time can be a problem where I live at the most popular internet service provider is Time Warner Cable and they had some technical issues that had people in 4 cities without internet for like almost a week. Always online can have it's downsides.