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

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

EDIT: Mods, I'm sorry for the double post, not sure what happened.

TLDR at the top: Do you accept the "It's the future, just accept it" argument as a justification for always online gaming?

So Inside Gaming did a video regarding the pros and cons of an always online game experience due to the announcement that some games will individually require persistent internet connections. You can see it below:

At 4:20, the bearded guy states that "we do not have a choice, the internet is not going away", as a justification for these things. Later on at 4:40, he says simply "this is the future", in reference to always online games. He makes that statement right after berating the substantial group of vocal people who forced the XB1's policy reversal, calling them "5% of the country" (which country, and source for the figure?).

I'm just going to go through the pros mentioned in the video and give my own thoughts on each of them. The discussion value of the thread is to give your own responses to these, too.

1: You can play anywhere

Erm, what? Are we still on about the always online games on the consoles that the video started off talking about? Because if that's the case, you can't play it anywhere. You have to play it at home, on your console, logged in to your account, no doubt further logged into your account for the specific publisher of the game. Apparently a console game can now be played "on a tablet, on the bus, while you're masturbating on the toilet..." (stay classy, IG). So, to conclude, no, you cannot "play anywhere" by the definition they've worked off.

2: Multiplayer and Connectivity more integral to the player experience

The main thrust of this point was that switching between single player and multi player mode is seamless, referencing Destiny. Funny, because wasn't Dead Space 3 an offline game that made going into co-op a fairly painless task? Regardless, any developer wanting to use this as a justification are either lazy or after your data / control. They are lazy because they cannot be bothered protecting your individual control as a player by allowing you the option of offline or online play. Instead, they will just build a "one size fits all" system where everyone is online, so it's easier for them. They are after your data / control because, like it's been discussed so many times previously, they want to make sure you, the legitimate paying customer, are not a dirty rotten thief.

3: Living, growing, online persistent worlds

MMO's have been doing this for years, I'm not sure why they're referencing this as a positive. The main kickback from it is that they are assuming that every game needs one. They reference Watchdogs and how you can jump into someone elses game from your mobile device. While this is a cool gimmick, and would never deny the developer the opportunity to do this, is it really so hard to allow the player to "opt out" of this, and allow them the freedom (I can't believe we have actually been reduced to saying things like "allow the freedom" in the first place) to just play on their own? Some people just won't want this, and will like to play the game on their own terms without some douche with an iPhone messing up their game. Lastly, developers, are you sure your game needs that gimmick that is going to need always online connectivity? Are you sure you're not just shoehorning it in as a means to justify the larger corporate benefits of these things?

4: Easier, more dynamic gaming online with friends

Their main reference point here seems to be Battlefield 4's commander mode, whereby you can have an overarching commanding view of the game, and have the ability to call in Tomohawk missiles, UAV's etc in real time into a game instance. This reference, however, is for a game that has it's bread and butter play in multiplayer, and has absolutely no bearing on a "what-would-be" single player game that's getting always online multiplayer features shoehorned in. Honestly, from what we've seen of the gameplay and the narrative (both of which I'm excited for), what are we going to lose if, for instance, Watch Dogs loses the online component?

5: It's the future

Oh dear. Oh very dear me. Now I'm honestly not sure if they've suffered an aneurysm at this point, or if this is where the M$ executive has dropped the big pile of money on the desk, but I don't think a human being could ever utter such asinine, short sighted, anti consumer, misinformed crap without being under the influence of either of those two. Let's just take a read of some of the things that get said in this section:

"This is how gaming is going to be in the future." - Really, say's who? Have you travelled forward in time and seen this?

"Just embrace the technology." - If your argument for something is saying "just embrace it", time to go back to square one with, basically, your entire argumentative construct.

"It's just the way it's going to be, stop dragging it out." - All I heard here was, "Shhh, shh, don't fight it, don't fight it. It will all be over soon, everything's gonna be okay. Just be a good little consumer for daddy and lay right there, thaaat's a good consumer."

All levity aside, the "it's the future" argument fall's down on one fundamentally simple roadblock: it assumes the future has already been decided. Microsoft was all about telling you that always online play was "the future" with the Xbox 1. Oh, wait, what happened again? The consumer happened. For one brief moment, we all got so collectively sick of the shit the corporations put us through, all got together in enough of a critical mass, and took one of the biggest players in gaming down a peg or two. So long as the "5%", as the bearded guy puts it, are vocal about calling out bullshit corporations on their bullshit anti-consumer practices, I think the consumer base as a whole stand to benefit.

The future is anything but decided at this point. And to say otherwise is to speak directly against the people who make this industry turn around: you, me, us.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your opinions on this matter.

2-4 don't even matter to me, because I couldn't care less about multi-player if I got paid to not care about it.

1 just isn't true, and even if it were it is also covered by handheld and mobile gaming (whose games generally do the whole 'portable gaming' thing much more effectively than any console game would anyway), and 5 is just a big load of dumb-dumb.

The only time I connect my consoles to the internet is when I want to check out the online stores. I really don't see that changing any time soon. So one of two things will happen: Either games with full offline functionality will continue being made and I will happily buy them and play them, giving the publishers and console manufacturers my money, or I will play games less and less often.

Honestly, the second option may not be such a bad thing. It'd certainly mean I would spend more time reading and working on my writing.

The long-story-short answer to all of this is that we embrace the technology that we want. What will fly, will fly. What sucks, will suck. And we? We will be the ones who decide which is which. That is why Microsoft was all but Xboned until they decided to one-eighty, because they didn't decide for us what gaming was going to be. Stupid ideas will be thrown to the wayside. To perpetuate them when they suck is a dead end creation.

Griffolion:

1: You can play anywhere

Over time, you'll likely be able to play an always online game in more places than you could current games. Current games still need a TV and a console to play, but the way that always online games are developing, it appears they want you to be able to play it from any device, primarily a console or a phone, which can connect to the Internet and your password protected account. The problem with this development is that it is driving us to a more always-online system, as it is much harder to implement that kind of connectivity to the game without having to use always online to avoid people exploiting it. While there are systems in place that can minimize exploitation of the system (ex. forcing a disc to play offline and a steady connection to play online minimizes a single copy only being played by two people), it doesn't go as far as most game developers and publishers want. So yes, to some extent, this aspect of game design might be used to help justify their desire to go always online for greater control of the product.

Still, I wonder why people don't do an opt-in, opt-out system. Those who opt-in are incapable of playing offline from any console with their account on it, but they do get the benefits of being able to play from any device they want. Those who want to opt-out lose the ability to play from any device without a disc, but they also don't have to worry about a constant internet connection. The system should be able to be turned on and off at any point, but anyone wanting to opt-out will have to reconnect so their profile can confirm it.

Griffolion:

2: Multiplayer and Connectivity more integral to the player experience

Yeah, their argument was absolutely ridiculous on this one. There is absolutely no reason why a person has to be always online to pull off seem-less co-op transitions. Plenty of games have given players the option to allow people to play singleplayer only, set up private multiplayer matches, join a random game, or allow random players to join your game at any time. It only requires an online connection for those who actually want to do co-op. I'm not sure developers are necessarily after your data and/or some sort of control over you, but it is lazy to not give the multiple game modes and act as if everyone wants to play online, which some of us are vehemently opposed to doing at times.

Griffolion:

4: Easier, more dynamic gaming online with friends

I'm not sure they were necessarily using BF4's commander as evidence or just using it for the clip because of its multiplayer-heavy nature, but if they are using it as evidence, I just have this to say:

Again, this goes back to their number 2 point: Always online is not necessary for this. You have different modes that allow playing with friends or randoms easier, while other modes remain offline for those who want to remain offline. Also, I do have to agree, trying to use a multiplayer-focused franchise that shouldn't even have singleplayer in the first place to make an argument for always online is just ridiculous. I'm not going to spend $60 on a Battlefield game to play their crappy campaign whose only reason for existence was to take resources away from the multiplayer. However, I might want to buy Watch Dogs or any other game just for the singleplayer.

Griffolion:

5: It's the future

Unfortunately, this is likely the future for most games. We rallied against the Xbox One, but it might be more difficult to get people to rally behind a popular upcoming title that they can see themselves receiving immediate benefits from it. The basic way the industry works is if you can convince gamers they will receive good benefits along with restrictive practices, they are more likely to accept what you have to give them. Steam can get away with being DRM and requiring online to install games because it is a great service, but we could hardly see any of its benefits carrying over to the Xbox One. That isn't likely to happen with every game, and the idea of "living, breathing worlds that are changing even when you are offline" is being seriously pushed along with the possibility to always remain connected to your games as major pluses to the always online argument. If developers can sell people on those ideas, and it is likely only a matter of time before they sell enough people on that idea, then we might find the next attempt at making an always online console much harder to get a good rallying against.

The thing is, the "It's the future" argument, though it is likely the future, doesn't justify why we should accept it. I'd much rather hold onto to what we have now, or hold on to the slight hope that we can improve things without going towards always online. It might be very easy for an old-school MMO player, as the guy in the video admitted to being, to accept it, but for anyone who prefers singleplayer games, always online literally threatens the thing in gaming we enjoy the most. So no, I'm not going to just accept it lying down. Even if it is the future, I at least want to be able to play games the way I want for as long as I can.

However, the good news is, it doesn't look like Sony, and especially Nintendo, are making the switch to always online any time soon. Might have to worry more about what developers and publishers do if given the option (though again, Nintendo seems completely against the idea), but there's still quite a few developers that seem to prefer appealing to the singleplayer audiences. There's also PC, where Steam and GOG either make DRM less draconian or avoid it altogether.

In regards to 1, that's what my 3DS is for. It's a nifty little thing called a handheld and only needs to be connected for the occasional system update.

In regards to 2-4, I am introverted as all get out so I like my single-player as untainted by the masses as could be. People make me anxious enough outside in the real world, I don't want or need to pay more to have them in my home in any fashion.

As for 5, my family collectively turned its back on Microsoft Christmas 2011 when we migrated to Apple and (with the exception of Office for Mac and hotmail) we haven't looked back. Everything they do now makes me feel dirty that I've even grown up around its products like since I was 4. Oh, the blind indoctrination. I remember badmouthing other people and companies for daring to say anything wrong about them for years so on some level, I kinda understand its defenders. But no more.

While I can't blame the console anymore than I can blame a child for it's parents, I'm just glad we averted the crisis by voting with our wallets for the time being. Internet Infrastructure in my country is still kinda unreliable in a lot of places because of the service providers and this version of 'the future' would've been downright cruel and oppressive. Especially with the 45% video game-related tax we have here, the console itself would cost around $1500 USD retail at least, without having to take all the restrictions into account.

Griffolion:
TLDR at the top: Do you accept the "It's the future, just accept it" argument as a justification for always online gaming?

What's being implied in the phrase "It's the future, get used to it" is that the new thing is somehow inherently better than what existed before. As far as always-online gaming, it isn't better. There is no net gain for the customer. The game doesn't run better because no always-online that's come out thus far has actually had part of its processing occur on the server-side. So even though they try to claim otherwise, all of the calculations and processing the game requires is still on the user end. That there is about the only possible benefit always-online could offer, and at this point every dev has blown it.

On the con side, there's not being able to play if your connection goes down, not being able to play AT ALL if your connection is unstable, possibly losing the ability to play if you move to a place with bad Internet (because fuck people in the military, right?), not being able to play the game you paid $60 in the future when the servers shut down...Basically it gives the game something no game has ever had before, apart from actual online games--an expiration date. There's a list somewhere of dozens of single-player games that you can't play anymore because the servers have been shut down. That's crazy, considering just earlier today I scratched an game itch I've been feeling for a while and played Spyro: Year of the Dragon.

So there it is. If the "future" only holds a huge step back and a bunch of problems that didn't exist before in exchange for NO benefits, then no thanks. I'll be having none of that.

I don't understand the desire for extra multiplayer stuff. My favorite games are and will always be single player. Either RPG, o action adventure. Sure, I play online games once in a while but its towards the bottom of the list of game preferences.

Persistent world is ok IF the game warrants it, ie an MMO. In fact I am supporting a game which is going to be exactly like this on kickstarter, of course this will have a single player online where shops and what not show up but annoying random strangers don't and the ability to play certain amount of time offline as well though with some limitations (can't buy a house offline because what if you bought same lot as someone else). Guess what the first thing people asked for (and received), dedicated never online single player

Where as in shroud of the avatar the persistent world looks cool and I want to be a crafter and sell stuff to other people even though I'm generally a single player person, the same idea in watchdogs has really soured my idea of the game. It looked COOL, I loved it and I wanted to preorder it even though its new IP which I NEVER do. Then they tell me that random pricks are going to be able to drop into my game, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NO NO NO NO NO. Gaming is MY thing, I deal with people all day, I don't want them getting into my game too, LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!

Why is single player such a dirty word at the moment?

Oh and if I want to play anywhere, there is a device for that, its called a laptop and it doesn't need me connected to do it, I can play the games I want where ever I can find a powerpoint (battery isn't fantastic :p )

I can't remember the quote exactly or who said it (I think it was jimquisition) but something along the lines of
"Innovation for the sake of innovation is a bad thing"

The future should be full of positive change, forcing change just because it's different seems stupid. Not to mention most of these changes aren't even beneficial to the consumer, which makes me wonder why should we bother purchasing their product if every feature hinders our enjoyment?

Translated: "accept everything new blindly", while I'm sure that is a great motto for the ultimate consumer sludge experience it isn't something sensible people should ever do.

I don't mind having new features, but I strongly object to loosing everything else.

Always online is definitely the future, but future is the key word there. A lot of countries just don't have the infrastructure set up to accommodate always on gaming for a huge part of their population. Hell, America is basically the biggest game buying juggernaut there is, but if you go to the mid west the internet connections are absolutely atrocious. Sure, in the big city you generally have pretty decent internet, but the great thing about gaming is that it's available everywhere that people live, and considering there's tons of people who live out in the sticks where they only have one, extremely crappy, extremely overpriced internet provider who would not be able to handle always online games.

Eventually things will change (hopefully). Eventually the majority of people will have google fiber, or something similar, and will be able to download a gig per second, but until then always online shouldn't be a requirement for gaming. It's too exclusionary to people who live in places where they don't get a choice in internet provider and can barely get anything above dial-up (which is a surprisingly large amount of places).

Ya ... famous last words. I seem to recall something similar being said about Laserdiscs.

I'd hardly call it the future, especially because all of these games will no longer be available in the future when their servers go down.

Online gaming is going to become more and more important as time goes on, as internet speeds increase, and as more people get access to broadband.

It's not that always-online is necessarily a bad thing. I'm a fan of MMOs, and have been playing them for years. But the point is that MMOs can get away with it because they offer enough benefits to counteract the negative of always having to be online.

Like I said, as time goes on, that negative will diminish as maintaining a fast internet connection becomes easier. There still need to be benefits. Diablo III and SimCity were obnoxious and disliked by the gaming community, rightly so, because the benefits that they provided weren't sufficient to justify the cost of always being online, and the additional downsides of having a shitty consumer experience at launch.

And that's what companies need to understand. You need to give people benefits if you're going to take away their ability to play offline. And, in the case of the Xbone, those who rarely play online are not going to accept a lot of those benefits, or care about them. And that's where the backlash came from.

So it might be possible to create a product where consumers will be happy being forced to be always online. Again, MMOs have been doing it for years. Microsoft had *some* good ideas with family sharing and added TV content, but restrictions on used games sort of counteracted that and they were hit with internet fury.

No way is this an excuse in anyway. The fact that the largest portion of gaming still goes on off line says everything right then and there.

Jim pointed out that for this to truly become the case, the world's infrastructure needs to adapt to a tremendous degree to make it something that everyone 'can' do, let alone 'has' to do. That's just for starters.

The fact that I only play online games when I play games like Soul Calibur, games that are specifically designed for multiplayer, says it all. The rest of the time, I and a large amount of people, play games to get away from people. Games like Batman Arkham and Skyrim are what it's all about for us most of the time - single player experiences.

Without the multiplayer element, there's no reason or justification for 'always on'

Because from there, there just isn't any benefit to us consumers. From there, always on would mean the publishers could implement whatever measures they want to exert as much control over us as they please. If you had always on; it would be easy for them charge us to enter online, charge us to play with people from other countries, charge us to play games that aren't exclusive to their console, charge us for whatever idiotic reason they can concoct.

Griffolion:

1: You can play anywhere

Erm, what? Are we still on about the always online games on the consoles that the video started off talking about? Because if that's the case, you can't play it anywhere. You have to play it at home, on your console, logged in to your account, no doubt further logged into your account for the specific publisher of the game. Apparently a console game can now be played "on a tablet, on the bus, while you're masturbating on the toilet..." (stay classy, IG). So, to conclude, no, you cannot "play anywhere" by the definition they've worked off.

I'm just going to focus on this one, because it's my favourite.

I'm assuming they're referencing the share features the Xbone has now jettisoned, and which Microsoft tried to justify by saying it would be easier than taking your physical copies over to a friend's house. You know, because DVD's and Blu-Ray's are comprised of dark matter and require several tonnes of rigging equipment to move from place to place.

Not to mention that you'd still need the place you're going to have that specific console to play the same game, and that that console would need to be connected to the internet like yours to verify your copy and log you in. I'm really struggling to see how the always online stuff in any way made playing my games at a friends house any easier/more efficient.

At least I am assuming that is the scenario they are referring to, because otherwise all they are describing is handheld gaming that has been around for as long as I have, and which absolutely will not be able to play next-gen games for quite some time, I'd imagine.

OT: Yes, the phrase 'it's the future, accept it' really does piss me off because, while it is probably true that always-online is the way things are headed, funny thing about the future: it isn't here yet.

When the majority of the world still struggles to get a stable internet connection, nevermind one capable of always-online functionality, that is a sign that we are not yet ready to embrace this particular technological leap.

I don't really mind always-on gaming. My internet is on 90% of the time, and when it's down I can just play on a game that doesn't require always-on. It's in no way a system breaker for me. In fact, it may be cool so I can compare stats and stuff with friends, and easily connect to multiplayer with them without having to wait ages.

Taking hearsay from one of the hosts from an episode of inside gaming as cause to start a thread.\


This is one guys opinion. If you don't agree with just ignore it.

Companies don't change or reflect the consumers needs anymore instead they are actively trying to change the consumer. The only way to stop them is to not buy their products.

If a game has a single player mode, there is no excuse for requiring internet connectivity for that part of it. It's only a powergrab or a way to shove the newest advertising at you.

rob_simple:

Griffolion:

1: You can play anywhere

Erm, what? Are we still on about the always online games on the consoles that the video started off talking about? Because if that's the case, you can't play it anywhere. You have to play it at home, on your console, logged in to your account, no doubt further logged into your account for the specific publisher of the game. Apparently a console game can now be played "on a tablet, on the bus, while you're masturbating on the toilet..." (stay classy, IG). So, to conclude, no, you cannot "play anywhere" by the definition they've worked off.

I'm just going to focus on this one, because it's my favourite.

I'm assuming they're referencing the share features the Xbone has now jettisoned, and which Microsoft tried to justify by saying it would be easier than taking your physical copies over to a friend's house. You know, because DVD's and Blu-Ray's are comprised of dark matter and require several tonnes of rigging equipment to move from place to place.

Not to mention that you'd still need the place you're going to have that specific console to play the same game, and that that console would need to be connected to the internet like yours to verify your copy and log you in. I'm really struggling to see how the always online stuff in any way made playing my games at a friends house any easier/more efficient.

At least I am assuming that is the scenario they are referring to, because otherwise all they are describing is handheld gaming that has been around for as long as I have, and which absolutely will not be able to play next-gen games for quite some time, I'd imagine.

OT: Yes, the phrase 'it's the future, accept it' really does piss me off because, while it is probably true that always-online is the way things are headed, funny thing about the future: it isn't here yet.

When the majority of the world still struggles to get a stable internet connection, nevermind one capable of always-online functionality, that is a sign that we are not yet ready to embrace this particular technological leap.

I think these two guys are way off the mark to get that out of the way. (edit: the guys on the video, not the quoted people)

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.

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'.

i wasnt expecting this. more like in google glass thread, about new technology.
there is aboslutely no justification for always online requirement with exception of a game being a multiplayer only game that has to be online to actually be played (as in calcualtion done on server, MMO thing) since then you cant really go around without it. but for singleplayer, which is what i do most, nope.

I'm not going to accept it. The companies should accept that consumers are the ones that are making the rules. If you put a product out there that I don't like, I DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT! Accept that.

The "it's the future" point is weirdly fatalistic, the future doesn't just happen on its own! It's a guess. Here's another one "Microsoft will lose this generation of the "console war", just accept it". What are the odds that this will just be accepted?

No one has ever really attempted to justify the "always on for everything" requirement, although lots of people think they have. They just talk about the benefits and features of online content and connectivity and ignore or gloss over the "always on" stuff as if it's not important.

Image a restaurant that had bacon in all its most popular dishes, which also happened to have the highest profit margins. Many regulars only ever order dishes with bacon in and the most common comment made by customers is that they want more bacon. We would still consider it to be mental for the restaurant to require bacon in all main courses. Bacon is good but maybe sometimes I don't want bacon. Maybe I'm a vegetarian or Jewish/ Muslim or maybe I'm watching my weight and can only manage a light salad. I've slightly lost track of this metaphor.

New thought, just throwing it out there.

Does anyone think that an always online requirement might do something to quell the unnecessary and imbalancing addition of multi-player to games which are mainly single player?

Hear me out, single player only games are harder to protect against piracy because they can be played offline without be

So if a developer sticks in online multiplayer they have a way of sticking online DRM and (in their minds) reduce losses from piracy and used games. At the very least they can feel better by withholding some of their content from those who don't buy new.

But if the single player is online anyway they can fit this DRM in without needing use up development resources and adapting game mechanics to work as online multipayer.

So one of the main appeals of tagged on multiplayer is removed, potentially reducing its appeal.

This is in no way a defense of "always online" (or DRM for that matter). If the argument holds up (and I'm not sure if it does) then it at best is a happy side effect to "always online" becoming a standard.

You know who gets to decides how the future will look like?
Me.
Well, me and every other potential customer.

Alright, let's say People where generally on board with the idea of online connectivity. Because it's the future, apparently.
Some People would then decide that their router is too crappy or their internet is not reliable enough or they can't do it for some reason or another. They'll say "oh well, seems i'm not ready for the future yet. I'll buy the new console later, whenever i get around to it.".

Microsoft would've been in for a rude awakening.

"It's the future!" is pretty much the stupidest argument that can possibly be made. No substance, it says absolutely nothing. The bronze age was the future, seen from the stone age.
One could've said that in this day and age, internet infrastructure is developed far enough, or will be developed far enough soon to have something like that be not overly annoying for most customers.
"It's the future" is an argument so astoundingly stupid that i would strongly recommend that the guy sees a doctor because apparently the speech center in his brain isn't working properly.

I think it's important to stress that in the video those two people also bring up negatives of always-online experiences;

1. You won't be able to play a game without a constant internet connection

2. There WILL be day-one server issues due to the nature of the games

3. Game companies will easily be able to data-mine players, including you

4. Accounts can be more easily hacked

5. "Recurring Costs" (from their conversation I interpret that as "Companies will go crazy with forcing the player to pay them more money")

6. Because of account-based ties the idea of used games will vanish

While I believe that those arguments listed above are not the strongest arguments against always-online games, we should realize that this is not a one-sided debate.

As for those points made in favor of always-online games; he really needed to rephrase some and "It's The Future" is not an argument for something happening. "It's The Future" said in a non-personal context (AKA "I Believe It's The Future") is something bandwagoning enthusiasts say when they want to feel superior to other individuals.

"It's the future...so long as you live in a country where cities have symmetrical, unlimited bandwidth internet connections."

It forgets that internet tends to be asymmetrical, and is metered and restricted in many countries across the world. It excludes those areas in which the internet is not as strong, the infrastructure is old or outdated, or have to rely on wireless connections that aren't exactly the most stable things. It excludes children's wards in hospitals in which unshielded internet connections can interfere with medical equipment. It excludes service men and women that play to unwind after their tours. It strips gaming back to the few and privileged that can afford the service that caters to their specific needs. And you can guarantee, said service will not be cheap.

It's a justification for excluding gamers that they don't feel should be playing their systems. It's a justification for treating customers like criminals. It's a way for them to maintain tight and strict control over their product and milk you for every penny you have, while telling you it's for your own good.

Or something like that...

Dirty Hipsters:
Always online is definitely the future, but future is the key word there. A lot of countries just don't have the infrastructure set up to accommodate always on gaming for a huge part of their population. Hell, America is basically the biggest game buying juggernaut there is, but if you go to the mid west the internet connections are absolutely atrocious. Sure, in the big city you generally have pretty decent internet, but the great thing about gaming is that it's available everywhere that people live, and considering there's tons of people who live out in the sticks where they only have one, extremely crappy, extremely overpriced internet provider who would not be able to handle always online games.

Eventually things will change (hopefully). Eventually the majority of people will have google fiber, or something similar, and will be able to download a gig per second, but until then always online shouldn't be a requirement for gaming. It's too exclusionary to people who live in places where they don't get a choice in internet provider and can barely get anything above dial-up (which is a surprisingly large amount of places).

Exactly my thoughts. I'll also add that every time I see someone spouting that only 3rd world countries have poor or no internet, it makes me hope that they are somehow forced to move out of a large city in America, to find out very large parts of America don't have so much as cell phone reception. Why do you think Verizon had the motto "Can you hear me now?" Many small towns and miles of land in the center of the USA rely on Verizon because ATT just focuses on largely populated areas. Get stranded in B.F.E.? ATT cant help you, try finding a hill... then pray. Even ol verizon has its moments where it cant help you. And that is cell phone service, internet is even worse.
Anyone who claims that most of the country has internet, needs to leave the city more often... or for once. Whenever I see people state such things, I can see that they know very little about their own country - much less the world and how to run a nation wide business in it.

Always-online probably is the future. Key words: THE FUCKING FUTURE. 'The Future' famously being 'Not Now'.

People aren't ready for it, countries aren't ready for it - especially the US in many areas, which you'd think these morons would get considering they're based there - and companies aren't ready for it.

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.

Mr Mystery Guest:
Companies don't change or reflect the consumers needs anymore instead they are actively trying to change the consumer. The only way to stop them is to not buy their products.

realistically they have been changing consumers since the 1950's. its a multibillion dollar industry working out how best to manipulate people into believing a want is now a need the consumer must have.

there is an occassional discovery channel advert with a guy who is a game developer who says the future is multiplayer because an AI cant possibly compete with a person for realistic behaviour. hes right of course but one thing all these developers forget is that people are assholes and will do anything and everything in their power to ruin the experience for someone else. how many times have each of you read anout someones imagined experience of what an mmo could be ruined the first time they actually played one by seeing RaBbItAsShOlE99 bunny jumping past them

yes i do believe eventually gaming will go completely cloud gaming its too much of a temptation for publishers frankly and theoretically it could be good for consumers by eliminating system requirements, but of course it will be abused

you have the opportunity to create the future of gaming now or meekly accept what the publishers feed you.

people look down on ea backing down with ME3's ending but realistically it shows gamers can make a change in the industry if they are loud enough

It has nothing to do with the future, you already covered it well OP. It's actually "surrender your freedom", or

Mr.K.:
Translated: "accept everything new blindly"

Perfectly summed up their stupid points.

Really, I think it's that these pubs/devs let the new technology fill their head with the possibility's while forgetting who they're leaving behind. Like making art that only the artist can understand. They forgot how to make the perfect experience because they are so focused on upgrading and stuffing everything into small spaces.

As usually I retort by just saying the future should be about CONVENIENCE!!!

Online connectivity is the future. It's just not the present. Americans have slows speeds and bandwidth caps. Protesting can get you kicked off a service, and Comcast and Time Warner have a duopoly. I can't speak much for other nations, but they're targeting us as a primary market.

What they're trying to do is shape the future, one where you need permission to play, sell, lend, or think about your games. If they don't get that, they might end up with technology akin to the CD: something beloved my consumers for being a versatile and easy-to-use device that thwarts every attempt to supplant it. An open internet, an open future is a nightmare to corporations, especially American ones.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked