Has consumer pressure ruined gaming for the next decade? *spawn

[Deleted member 11852]

The ps1 having optical media standard was a game changer. Yes, it increased latency to data *dramatically* (sound familiar?) but the pros of the vast amount of storage it offered outweighed the cons, and along with that came games like Metal Gear Solid that got other developers thinking of new ways to build immersive games and ultimately leading to GTA5 which we see today. If the cd drive was optional on ps1, would Metal Gear Solid ps1have ever been created, and would immersive open world games be at the same state they are today?

Prior to the original PlayStation, my most previous console was the Atari 2600, C64, various Amigas, Windows 98 - XP PCs and Macs in-between. I'd been watching the consoles all the time from the NES through to the PC Engine and still thought the PlayStation's move to CD-based games was a mistake.

Until I saw Tomb Raider and Resident Evil. Then I was sold. Shiny discs were the future.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah let's talk about all of those...

You've just repeated your argument saying it needs to be supported as standard, without answering my question. I want to hear what gameplay exactly can't be done on the local console that can be done in the cloud, from people just using their imagination. We have a thread that explored ideas already. Cloud provides lots of compute at considerable latency, and lots of storage and connectivity. So go wild and think up some game ideas. I'm seriously struggling. Most ideas revolve around persistence and multiplayer interactions. We could have god games, puzzlers, platformers, racers, abstract games (Echochrome and PixelJunk Eden and Flower), all on next-gen consoles (and this gen) without needing to turn to the cloud to enable them. We could have emergent gameplay and living worlds just with persistence as we already have in multiplayer without needing an always online connection (it can be optional). Heck, HDDs as standard mean persistence and growing, living worlds is doable with a possible sacrifice to graphics.

Your argument appears to hit a roadblock at, "gameplay is dead because we don't have the cloud, but the amazing things the cloud can enable can't be imagined or described by anyone." Which boils down to a question of faith, and one I don't buy into. Firstly, I don't believe the lack of gameplay variety is due to a lack of online processing and storage. Secondly, I don't imagine there's a great deal the cloud can provide beyond certain persistence related experiences (GTA online, persistent clan-based gameplay).

 

[BoardBonobo]

Uses I can think of for a persistent connection is the use of massive databanks for NLP, precomputed search space for AI, and round robin game management for strategy games. But all of these could be optional and implemented on a per game basis. It would be nice if the platform holder provided an api an access to these things.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

None of them would necessarily make for a completely new game experience either, unless someone can conceive of a game type that is only possible with amazing AI as opposed to simplified AI. Ordinarily you're looking at the same basic gameplay with a change to quality of one aspect.

 

[Nesh]

Optionally. Historically how good has "optionally" faired in the console space?
.

"optional" was a failure only when the userbase was fragmented just as in the case of peripherals. Now its not. If it has to be forced to the gaming community to use it and call it "progress", then sir there is something wrong with the way you perceive "progress". If the developer isnt self-motivated to use it thats because they see no real benefits to add it unless by exception. If it opens the door of the potential they were seeking for they will use it. If its such an awesome progress like you claim they will use the cloud almost as a standard even if its optional.
You are self-convinced its a feature that needs to be standard and you want it FORCED. If its FORCED to the developer to be implemented dont expect the developer to start inventing meaningful ways to use it just because. The game could make online checks and do nothing meaningful in the cloud.

Forcing it is not progress. Increasing its adoption in time is real progress as the market and technology advances. As most people have internet, people will have the chance to try cloud based games and their adoption will increase in time.

In addition you are delusional if you think "an always online" console would have motivated every developer to also use the cloud creatively. Just as the example above, if the developer isnt self motivated to use cloud he would make a game that doesnt even use it meaningfully except by exception regardless if its "always online" or not. Because just as it has been many times proven to you, its applications are either limited or doesnt always provide meaningful advancements in gameplay and not all developers are trying to shove cloud based augmentations when the game they want to make doesnt need it.

 

[warb]

I suppose all the gameplay types we can think of were possible to some degree on a ZX Spectrum, simplified a bit.


We'll need the cloud to manipulate enormous data sets, or for simulation of any kind beyond the scope of one console. And whatever enhanced gameplay emerges from this new environment.

 

[ninzel]

The exploitation and viability of cloud was always going to be based on one thing and thats the state of consumer connectivity and that has nothing in real terms to do with MS policy. Peoples connections/speed/bandwidth etc are what they are independent of MS policy, The once every 24 hour check alone guaranteed devs next to nothing.
That was the point I was making before my internet went down to power outage and flooding here in Toronto. How timely and ironic, :smile:

 

[warb]

It guaranteed that every X1 user had an internet connection, at the very least.

 

[ninzel]

It guaranteed that every X1 user had an internet connection, at the very least.

Which most X1 users were probably going to have anyway.
For the policy change to have an impact on the viability of cloud you would have to prove one of two thing things.
1. A whole bunch of people who didn't already have internet in 2013 were going to get a connection just because of the X! previous policy.
2. A whole bunch of people who already had an internet connection and were going to get the X1 are now going to disconnect because of the new policy.

 

[warb]

Impact on what though? The argument here has been publishers.

So the entire userbase of the console has their console connected and so all have at least some access to any cloud compute aspect of a game. That would've been the result of the previous policy.

 

[zupallinere]

It guaranteed that every X1 user had an internet connection, at the very least.

But not the 1.5 Mbits. I always wondered if your newly purchased XB1 would do a speed test and if it was below 1.5 it would flash at you "get a better data plan or box me up because this just won't fly"

 

[ninzel]

Impact on what though? The argument here has been publishers.

So the entire userbase of the console has their console connected and so all have at least some access to any cloud compute aspect of a game. That would've been the result of the previous policy.

No actually the previous policy didn't guarantee that everyone had internet. It only guaranteed that the console was connected once every 24 hours.
What did that guarantee developers seeking to use cloud? In theory what could be achieved with a console connected for a few seconds once a day? Not much I imagine.
Thats is why this was always going to be viable or not independent of MS basic requirement.

 

[joker454]

Your argument appears to hit a roadblock at, "gameplay is dead because we don't have the cloud, but the amazing things the cloud can enable can't be imagined or described by anyone." Which boils down to a question of faith, and one I don't buy into.

I didn't say dead, I said stalled. The old consoles were exotic hardware combined with in some cases more primitive tools plus the jump to multi core coding so they took some time to max out. The new boxes are bog standard x86 pc's with mature tools and code bases, and pretty much everyone knows how to write x86 code. Not to mention that they all run the same pc game engines that coders have been working on for years already. Hence the new consoles will get maxed out quicker than last gen, then there's another 5 to 7 years of console cycle to deal with. Then what?

Firstly, I don't believe the lack of gameplay variety is due to a lack of online processing and storage.

Ah well there we differ greatly and that's likely the crux of why I don't agree with you or others here. To me it's all about processing power, memory and storage, that's what unlocks previously unattainable ideas. Simply put you can never have enough of it especially going forwards as it keeps taking exponentially more power/connectivity to bring new ideas to light.

Forcing it is not progress. Increasing its adoption in time is real progress as the market and technology advances. As most people have internet, people will have the chance to try cloud based games and their adoption will increase in time.

In addition you are delusional if you think "an always online" console would have motivated every developer to also use the cloud creatively.

It's not about forcing, it's about guaranteeing the audience. If you can't guarantee that then it's less likely to get supported. It doesn't mean every developer would have used it, I'm not saying that, but it does mean some at least would have.

Which most X1 users were probably going to have anyway.

...which you then still have to get approved by your boss/manager/publisher/etc by making your case that yeah, "mostly likely" everyone is online. As I said before, good luck with that.

Anyways this is all too familiar, I remember lots of similar complaints going from cartridge to cd, some were adamantly against it. That jump required re-architecting everything to deal with the high latency to the cd and it took time before everyone was sold that cd was the way of the future. Lots of early cd games sucked, and you had to deal with people wishing cd's would die and that cartridges would come back. In any case we're in an infinite loop here and I think it's time to break out of it, there's not much more for me to say that I haven't already said. This is all academic now anyways, the internet connection is optional and that's that, we'll just have to let things evolve at their natural pace.

 

[zupallinere]

We'll need the cloud to manipulate enormous data sets, or for simulation of any kind beyond the scope of one console. And whatever enhanced gameplay emerges from this new environment.

The MS Cloud is so good you don't know what to do with it but you know you've lost so much without it. :smile:

On the "positive" end of things no matter what comes of cloud gaming MS fans can claim "Ah it would have been better or faster or more beautiful if Microsoft hadn't backed down "

 

[dobwal]

The challenge for MS will be to quickly find a way to differentiate their offering from Sony with their cloud infrastructure.

If the experience is similar, people are right to question the value proposition. However, if there are notable gains in the experience by leveraging the cloud infrastructure, then you can easily generate a lot of word of mouth buzz and really see sales take off.

The quicker they can readily demonstrate their advantage, the better. We'll see.

MS biggest advantage is that they have products and services other than gaming consoles that can leverage cloud computing. MS would probably never have been encouraged to invest billions into cloud strictly for the XB1. MS is basically planning to amortize the cost of the cloud infrastructure across several business segments. Meaning MS can afford to build out its data center more aggressively with more servers with better hardware inside.

Given the 9-24 doc, MS plans to forego providing beefy local hardware to each user next next gen and go strictly to an OnLive like service. Its cheaper to upgrade a data center with newer gpus than it is to provide 75-100 million new individual consoles to consumers. On top of that it easier for MS to sell it as a subscription service if users don't have to buy new hardware. XB1 was probably to serve as the initial hook made easier since MS could be assured that every XB1 was internet enabled and a potential customer.

 

[zupallinere]

No actually the previous policy didn't guarantee that everyone had internet. It only guaranteed that the console was connected once every 24 hours.
What did that guarantee developers seeking to use cloud? In theory what could be achieved with a console connected for a few seconds once a day? Not much I imagine.
Thats is why this was always going to be viable or not independent of MS basic requirement.

Seems to me just having people having a live account would be enough since that means you had to have a connection. You have to have a live account in any case ( gold most likely but you can at least buy a game with silver account )

How many people create a live account and then drop the internet never to connect it again ? That delta stands between Cloud Nirvana and a stultified morass I guess.

 

[dobwal]

No actually the previous policy didn't guarantee that everyone had internet. It only guaranteed that the console was connected once every 24 hours.
What did that guarantee developers seeking to use cloud? In theory what could be achieved with a console connected for a few seconds once a day? Not much I imagine.
Thats is why this was always going to be viable or not independent of MS basic requirement.

It ensured that every Xb1 had access to the internet. And if it wasn't for the initial outcry, MS would have probably wanted every XB1 to have a persistent connection. Thereby ensuring developers that they weren't developing cloud based features for a small subset of users.

Now cloud based features can be just inconsequential as Kinect features are for most games on the 360.

Potential investment in any feature has to weighed against the potential number of users.

 

[warb]

The MS Cloud is so good you don't know what to do with it but you know you've lost so much without it. :smile:

On the "positive" end of things no matter what comes of cloud gaming MS fans can claim "Ah it would have been better or faster or more beautiful if Microsoft hadn't backed down "

Because we are all of us crazed console warriors right?

I'd just like to see all of the ideas already mentioned, implemented and expanded upon in lots games. Cloud compute is an extra ingredient.

 

[zed]

i notice how many of the same people here claiming the cloud/gatika etc is going to radically alter gaming were also making the same claims about kinect, and we know how many new and radical things came from that harrry potter, starwars dancing etc

sure i can imagine itll be good for big mmorpgs etc but i was already under the impression these had millions already what do you want billions of people

 

[warb]

Did you also notice that not every 360 has a Kinect?

I'd guess more games will make use of gestures, voice, leaning/head tracking, facial expresions and whatever else now that it's standard equipment and Kinect data is there for every game to use.