Why can that not be done now if you are online? Your friendslist already tells you what games they are playing, and Vita is able to search the local area for players that have Vita's and tells you what they have been playing. Neither require always online.
If you are not online then you are not getting realtime local data, if you are playing a game where you say have to track friends or random psn users as they travel or go on holiday, as part of a game, the best you will be able to do is simulation. It would vary by game. I'll leave coming up with lots uses of an always online required connection up the professionals (Game designers).
So security for games is worth more than freedom for consumers to play offline? Sony were able to combat piracy to an extent this gen with the PS3 without needing to resort to crazy Always Online, need to report back to the mothership systems.
Where did I say that required always online is worth cutting off consumers right to play a game offline? I have constantly said how I don't agree with a forced required online (I won't be getting the nextbox) I'm simply pointing out advantages, and no not all advantages are for the consumer, and changes usually always have advantages and disadvantages in some way or another.
Sony were able to stop piracy because they could close the loophole, the PS3 is a very complicated system, tomorrow it could be hacked in such a way so that they could never block it (Look at the PSP scene).
How?
I made a mistake in my logic on this point, I retract it and apologise.
How about the ability to play games when the servers are down and not need to give out compensation at all.
People were able to play most games offline when PSN went down, people still wanted compensation and were still given it. When the loss is higher then the compensation should be as well.
People have to realise that negatives or disadvantages also usually have advantages or positives to, in some small way or not, if you look for them.
I shall say this again as you still seem to think I am some defender of Microsoft. I do not agree with having an always online required console, but to say there are no advantages for the consumer (or anyone else for that matter) is disingenuous. Consumer wise I would say negatives out way the positives, but that doesn't mean the positives aren't there.
Where is the advantage? I'll use the example I already mentioned in the last post.
If I leave my PC on Steam will update all my games without me needing an Always Online system.
If my console is always online, in low or high power state, then I don't need to worry about leaving it on, like i would a computer, just in case there is an update. But as it is, your computer must be online all the time (Always online) for it to be able to download the updates at any time.