"It's the future, just accept it."

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I can imagine alot of games tying themselves to the cloud even if it's for some arbitrary shit like been able to look at stats on your mobile. However I don't think as many games will beable to get away with it past the initial launch period especially niche games that are flops but still need supporting to keep playable.

I think we will see a more practical approach from alot of game makers, have the cloud stuff in the game but the game is still playable without it. To fully exclude offline players is folly, best make it like PC gaming was over a decade ago. Back then I was offline but was still able to play Unreal Tournament offline with bots and get all my demos and patches of the cover CD of magazines.

If you look at the worst of DLC and gouging in this console gen, it's mostly just the AAA blockbusters that do it, while alot of the smaller budget boxed console games didn't, because they would risk losing too big a % of sales.

I think AAA's before long will realise that they can't continue to force the BS "future" on to us without providing for offline players and use when the servers go down. The 4 PS4 to 1 X1 preorders at my local game store is just the beginning of gamers finally pushing back.

Well, if this is the future, I guess I'm a retro gamer now! :D

I never really understood the "It's the future!" argument. There's a humongous gap between "bleeding edge enthusiast" and "Luddite", and I'm happy to sit somewhere in that spectrum.

WWmelb:

rob_simple:

WWmelb:
On the other hand

PS4 with a PSVita and having your console always online DOES actually allow play anywhere i believe... streaming via wifi from ps4 to the vita. Or is it only local and not internet? that i'm not sure on.

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

Well, Sony have definitely stated that all PS4 games CAN be streamed to the Vita, i'm just unsure if it is local only or not. Was an article here somewhere that stated that dev's had to include the support when developing for PS4.

Hm, I'm wondering if it'll work the same as the WiiU gamepad. I can see that happening, but it still wouldn't facilitate gaming anywhere.

From what I've read, the Vita can use cloud-streaming to play PS3 games on the go --although, again, that presumably relies on you maintaining a stable wi-fi/internet connection while out of the house, which is near impossible to do if you're on a bus or a train-- but PS4 connectivity will work more like the WiiU, where the PS4 just changes the optical output from your TV to your Vita. I just can't see the Vita being powerful enough to run PS4 games on its own, cloud-streaming or not.

It's still cool, but nowhere near the future these chaps are saying we're living in already.

It won't officially be the future until either Jetpacks or Pew-Pew weaponry become standard military equipment.

Nope. I didn't even touch Steam with a ten foot pole for almost 7 years until they fixed their offline mode. Now I'm happy to use it. Nobody's sacred, if your business model conflicts with my ideals, you won't get my money and I'll still get to play your games.

No matter how realiable the internet and electricity ever get, having to go through the internet to use my media licenses will always be entirely unacceptable, barring 100% multiplayer games.

Hell, I'm a photo-journalist by trade and will be sticking to Adobe Photoshop CS6 seemingly forever, since they created a no-client streaming service only policy now. It doesn't matter who you are. You are dead to me.

Sadly (or insultingly), the mentality right now in AAA is to throw a list of buzzwords at the market's face repeatedly hoping it sticks:
"Community" "Cloud Processing" "The FUTURE!" "Evolution" "<euphemism>-Experience!"
"Social media! Smartphones! Tablets! Mobile!"

In theory it can work but in practice, for the majority of games (non-MMOs, basically), all they are doing is tripling the critical points of failure. (From a single LOCAL HOST to LOCAL HOST + REMOTE SERVER + INTERNET CLOUD)

Why? So they can push gaming into some comfy control-system which makes investors and marketing happy.
It will end with price hikes, more skewed cost-content ratios, and yet more arm twisting for the legitimate customer.

Always-Online is not about enhancing the end-user's experience because most of those "enhancements" touted already exist in hybrid Online/Offline systems (only with the offline component stripped out), and those that don't are nowhere near practical for most of mainstream gaming's primary markets (like cloud computing, which requires EXTREMELY low ping for processing done on a per-frame basis).

SUMMARY: It doesn't matter if they think or want it to be "The future" of gaming. The most practical platform design in gaming already exists: those that let the player choose.

Eliminating that choice is logically indefensible, no matter how many features they claim to provide on the side.

rob_simple:

WWmelb:

rob_simple:

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

Well, Sony have definitely stated that all PS4 games CAN be streamed to the Vita, i'm just unsure if it is local only or not. Was an article here somewhere that stated that dev's had to include the support when developing for PS4.

Hm, I'm wondering if it'll work the same as the WiiU gamepad. I can see that happening, but it still wouldn't facilitate gaming anywhere.

From what I've read, the Vita can use cloud-streaming to play PS3 games on the go --although, again, that presumably relies on you maintaining a stable wi-fi/internet connection while out of the house, which is near impossible to do if you're on a bus or a train-- but PS4 connectivity will work more like the WiiU, where the PS4 just changes the optical output from your TV to your Vita. I just can't see the Vita being powerful enough to run PS4 games on its own, cloud-streaming or not.

It's still cool, but nowhere near the future these chaps are saying we're living in already.

Very true. However i guess we'll see in the near future how well it all works and to what degree. I do give props to sony on this kind of integration though. It is a pretty cool concept in theory.

I accept the argument for gaming, yes. If any company decies that they gameplay experience can be enhanced with online connectivity, I wish them well even should said connectivity be mandatory.

Where problems arise is what was getting Microsoft so much bad press (well, some of it, may have been multiple sources :P), requiring people to be online just for the sake of being online. Not good.

You know, I don't get why they couldn't just make it an option. Even in the future, I would think people would like to be able to choose to be online or not. Maybe I don't want people to interrupt my game? Did they ever think of that? Sometimes, I want to play alone. Other times, I want friends. I don't need to play EVERY game with someone else.

And what about those countries that don't have the same internet connection capabilities that they apparently think all Americans have? Guess they are just too dumb to accept the future.

I won't lie. Games like Destiny look amazing and I like what I am hearing about it. However, I also like offline games. Kingdom Hearts 3 will certainly be gracing my game collection.

So, yeah, online games maybe the future, but I think there will always be room for offline single player experiences. So, online connection should be an option. Though, my own system will likely be online 99% of the time, anyway, but still. I want options. Isn't that Business 101? Customers like options. Even small options like color choice.

I was interested in what they had to say, but, and I kid you not, my internet died mid video and it stopped loading.

I don't even have to form a rebuttal, I just have to point to that experience and say, "There ya go."

Good points, but don't insult me by calling me, or anyone else, a consumer.

OT: It's not my future, I will decide how I play my games.

I've been hearing the whole 'Always Online Worlds Will Become Living, Breathing Things, Full Of Immersion And Stuff!' line quite a bit nowadays, and all I can say about that is I used to be a World of Warcraft player, a number of years ago... and while I found enjoyment and immersion whenever I was off on some quest on my own, traversing a dark forest or hellish landscape, the time my sense of immersion dropped to its lowest was when outside people were tossed in. This wasn't quite so bad on the RP servers (which I generally stuck to specifically BECAUSE it was slightly less immersion-breaking) but any time I'd enter a more densely populated area, there would just be no helping the fact that an online community of strangers shatters immersion with a hammer. Even turning the chat off to silence the calls of 'LF Level 35 Mage For Group!' or 'lololol hi!' and other rubbish, I'd still see Night Elves hopping obsessively to create the much-sought somersault leap, people trying to reach normally inaccessible nooks by climbing atop scenery with MORE hopping, folks running around in their boxers just for the hell of it. Goldshire, oh GOD, Goldshire was a nightmare, because it was one of the easiest spots for Level 1 characters to reach, so people who were bored waiting for their own server to finish maintenance, or just bored period, would make a new character JUST to troll there.

Now, some settings, immersion isn't so important because it takes a back seat to competition. I will no doubt play Warframe, Planetside 2, etc, etc, but the point of them isn't exploring and discovering a new setting... it's fragging and laying waste to the opposition. The Division, on the other hand, looks like it involves some exploration and discovery elements, which is why the online requirement worries me. Immersion can be maintained if the game environment is one that has people you know, and trust. I play Minecraft with a few friends, and though we don't do anything extreme as 'roleplay,' when playing we just talk about swapping resources, a certain pet project, etc, etc. But if Minecraft suddenly started throwing random groups of strangers into my game... well, I'd probably stop playing pretty quick, cause some folks just want to watch the pixelated world burn.

Don't you love it when people predict the future? It's not like they ever could be wrong. Haha. ... Ugh...

Uh huh. Thing is, this isn't the future, it's the present. And in the present, a lot of us aren't convinced about a reliable internet connection with no restrictions. I've thought for a while that more people might be open to always online if internet was like electricity: it comes in at your whim, you only get cut off for not paying your bill, and problems are rare and almost always on the suppliers' end. I've had to deal with connection issues both at home and work several times this year. The modem, the router, the cables, the drivers, the software, there's just so much that can break down and cut you off. Factor in bandwidth caps, and shared usage leading to slowdown and it's hard for me not to see why some hear "always online" and respond "great, when I'M always online."

I personally don't think an internet connection should be required if you're playing a game while there is no possible multiplayer component. I can see the argument if you're playing, say, the new Dark Souls, and they expanded the multiplayer mechanic so that you actually NEED the notes sometimes (although I can't see why you would). Then, sure, the online connection is pretty important.
The argument that "well, everyone has internet anyway" isn't good enough for me. If the persistent online mechanic causes me to unnecessarily get booted from a game once then that is one time too many, and I guarantee it will happen at least once with the current state of my internet.

The persistent world stuff is classic Microsoft at this point. They love to repackage things that already exist with more restrictions/control, then pass it off as their amazing new invention.

Xbone will allow you to buy all your games online! No discs! Just like people have been doing on 360, PS3, and PC for damn near a decade?

Xbone will enable massive, persistent worlds! You mean like the ones people have enjoyed since the first goddamn Everquest?

Xbone will allow you to share your games, on a limited/trial basis, with all of your friends! You mean like a fucking demo? Those things we've had for, what, 20+ years?

Xbone will be able to tailor ads to your specific tastes, bringing you the best possible advertising expereince! You mean like that thing no one asked for fucking ever?

It's sad because the things they describe all seem like they could benefit gaming in some small way, but it should be optional. Making this stuff mandatory causes more harm than good.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here