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

joker454

Veteran
Joker used that as a launch platform to revisit his anger over the loss of a service/feature he valued, and took the thread down an avenue that's been visited many times before but I guess he felt people hadn't yet said how much internet they have/haven't got enough and we could do with another round of the same old arguments.

Ok, you're grossly oversimplifying things, this has nothing to do with me not getting a feature on a bullet point list.

Normally I wouldn't give a rats ass about fanboy rants. Fanboys normally are there to point at and laugh for their imbecility, beyond that they were typically harmless. Now though you also have the mainstream media in it's never ending quest for mediocrity carrying any story possible without care for truth or fact checking, so while before moronic fanboys crying about stuff was just a good joke to laugh at, now they potentially have the power to have more influence. Case in point the loss of a fully online console, otherwise known as "the inevitable".

Does that matter because I lost a feature I wanted? No that's not the point at all. Look at what people posted on this forum for years, I'll use pc gaming as the example. They wanted new types of games going forward with new experiences and improvements in basic subsystems like ai, etc, they didn't just want better graphics, a point often mentioned as to why pc gaming isn't appealing. After all it's the same games just with better visuals. Ok that's a great point and very true. So what did they end up getting in the new consoles? They got exactly what they were clamoring that they didn't want, basically the same games with just better visuals. Yeah there are a few always connected games getting some press, games that were in the pipe before the always connect console was killed off so fortunately those games will make it to market. But with always connected now dead, what guarantee is there that future games will make use of the internet to explore new ideas and new distributed computational methods? And therein lies the problem. There is now no guarantee that the new consoles will do anything other that just play the same old types of games with better visuals. We can already see that on many of the games shown, the same old tired ideas regurgitated at 1080p, something painfully obvious as I walked around e3 and noticed little new.

So what's going to happen now? Watch this forum and see, you will see the same old complaints come to light:

- "Man the ai just isn't that smart." Really? Well too bad, you asked for it by killing off the always connected console.

- "This game would be so much better if it had more user content." That's fantastic, but that's what you asked for, to have that type of functionality infinitely more limited by not assuring a standard internet connection that a developer could count on and hence devote resources to.

- "Hmm the physics seem very canned and scripted." Well yeah, that's exactly what you asked for, a computationally fixed box that will get maxed out in short order and provide you with little new over the next bunch of years.

- "I wish the game would change a bit over time to give me more play value". Yeah that would be great, but that's not happening now as per gamers request, you wanted a fixed disc based game without guaranteed connectivity of any kind.

- "Weather simulation is so primitive, I thought this was next gen?" Yeah so did I, instead gamers demanded that they don't want that, 150watts of power in a box isolated from the world is what they wanted and that's what they got.

- "Where are the new game ideas?" Great question, where are they? Well it's hard for developers to make new ideas when you lock them into the same type of hardware paradigm as has been done since the Atari 2600, a fixed box connected to a tv. It would be great to try new stuff if an internet connection was guaranteed, but now that's it's not there is no way to get a publisher to financially sign off on research and development in that area.

One could go on and on, and not even mention all the cool stuff we lost due to who knows how many developers abandoning any distributed computing development plans now that it's not a standard feature. All the cool new stuff that no one has yet thought of. But the gamers have spoken, they want the same shooters with the same platformers with all the same games, just with better visuals on the same fixed function box. Great, they got what they want. But don't throw this back on me as me complaining that I lost a bullet point on a feature list. What you should now be doing is throwing it back on anyone that complains about next gen games, either because they are more of the same or some features are lacking, etc, because sorry they all brought this on themselves. And it's not because no one has internet or no one has a reliable connection, which was the point I was previously trying to make. That's a fallacy as can be shown by all kinds of documents out there. This generation should have been the next step forward, the one that went always connected because all the data out there shows that yes it is now possible to require an internet connection and move things forward. And no I don't mean everyone needing a 300mbps down connection or other stupid arguments that are made, the connection can be really slow and even have large latency and still make a massive difference to the games we play, so long as the connection is guaranteed to be there to developers.

There I made my point, now you can resume playing the same games you have been playing for 10+ years now, but just with prettier pixels. I'll be curious to see how long it takes before the complaints start rolling in, how the ai in that sports game is dumb, or how game x, y and z seems like the same old games. On the one hand I'll laugh as gamers brought that on themselves by delaying the future, but on the other hand it sucks ass because now they have denied me forward thinking games as well. You should be as pissed as I am, especially once all the typical gamer complaints start rolling in as they inevitably will.
 
This seems all a bit much, but a glaring flaw (only I'm going to spend time on addressing) in your argument is the overwhelming assumption that had things gone the way you wanted the "same old gamer complaints" would magically not exist.

Really?

C'mon man.

Not even touching the dark side to all of this which, imho justly, got MS in hot water in the first place. It isn't all sunshine and puppy farts with this crap, and people had good cause to be upset.
 
- "Man the ai just isn't that smart." Really? Well too bad, you asked for it by killing off the always connected console.

- "This game would be so much better if it had more user content." That's fantastic, but that's what you asked for, to have that type of functionality infinitely more limited by not assuring a standard internet connection that a developer could count on and hence devote resources to.

- "Hmm the physics seem very canned and scripted." Well yeah, that's exactly what you asked for, a computationally fixed box that will get maxed out in short order and provide you with little new over the next bunch of years.

- "I wish the game would change a bit over time to give me more play value". Yeah that would be great, but that's not happening now as per gamers request, you wanted a fixed disc based game without guaranteed connectivity of any kind.

- "Weather simulation is so primitive, I thought this was next gen?" Yeah so did I, instead gamers demanded that they don't want that, 150watts of power in a box isolated from the world is what they wanted and that's what they got.

- "Where are the new game ideas?" Great question, where are they? Well it's hard for developers to make new ideas when you lock them into the same type of hardware paradigm as has been done since the Atari 2600, a fixed box connected to a tv. It would be great to try new stuff if an internet connection was guaranteed, but now that's it's not there is no way to get a publisher to financially sign off on research and development in that area.

None of these things require an always on connection mandated for everyone using the console. And of course, the cloud is still there whether or not your console is on or not.

Cheers
 
The following is somewhat it jest but honestly you wanted a thread to vent soooo ...

Sorry this is just fanboy nonsense in my book :) The cloud is already here, it's not going anywhere and I'm glad your imagination is taking you to special places but on Earth where large companies and institutions are vying for control over various aspects of our lives, looking to gain advantage in any way they can, we the consumer need to understand the "game" that they are playing. Companies are not our friends :p Maybe Mattrick was YOUR friend for all I know but I know for a fact he could care less about ME !!! :D

MS does what is in MS interest to do. It's about leverage and making deals with large players in the entertainment/telecom industry and has precious little to do with what gamers want or don't want. In this one ( maybe last ) time gamers spoke out on MS essentially pushing it's "entertainment" agenda that has to do with injecting itself into the living room of Joe and Jane average, leveraging their Azure platform ( which had nothing to do with gaming ), pushing essentially a Telecom centric view of the world and adding a couple of years to Time Warner/Comcast/Verizon/name your oligarch here, time in the sun. This is of course IMHO. Sony will sell us out as well but right now they have a story about games and gamers that strikes a cord.

The CLOUD will sell itself if it is soooo wonderful I am sure. Now we may have Google and Apple as well as MS and Sony to actually, I know it's a stunning concept, fight for our money not PR stuff about Infinite Cloud Power or Transistors in the Cloud or how wonderous a not so well thought out DRM plan is going to benefit us. Maybe it will maybe it won't I have no idea but I do know that competition and an angry, stubborn and cheap gamer can get a lot more for their hard earned money than a pie in the cloud MS fan :D
 
Case in point the loss of a fully online console, otherwise known as "the inevitable".
I think you just contradicted yourself, but whatever.

I never asked for any of the things you mentioned that would supposedly be granted through a "fully online console", nor would I value them if I had them. You see, some of us actually prefer to not share everything we do every second of our lives with huge corporate entities, or ask them permission to play the games we have actually paid for, and so on.

If I want to boot up a game for Fully Online Console X in ten, fifteen (shit, 25+, like some of my NES collection) years' time, will it even work, or will I be told that the mandatory online servers were shut down an age and a half ago and I should go buy something newer?

...So no, fully online consoles can go fuck themselves. I don't want them and I never did.
 
As someone who's console signs in automatically everytime I turn it on, and who almost exclusively buys DD games for convenience and to avoid disk swapping, the answer is sort of.

Downloaded games are as restrictive as ever now. I can't pick up a disc and just add that game to an account. I have to keep hold of the disc and keep it in the system to play. For the sake of discs, the DD games more and more of us are buying are locked to single accounts/consoles. Difficult to share, impossible to trade.


I assume MS would've removed the 24h offline limit at the end of the the console cycle, as they have now. And at least give everyone a chance to back up their purchases for offline use, if they're going to disappear from the cloud. If there's not backwards comparability in their next system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This seems all a bit much, but a glaring flaw (only I'm going to spend time on addressing) in your argument is the overwhelming assumption that had things gone the way you wanted the "same old gamer complaints" would magically not exist.

Really?

It would create an option to alleviate them. As things are now we're back to the same old limits of yesteryear, hence why next gen games play and feel very much like old gen games and there won't be enough cpu power available to change that significantly.


None of these things require an always on connection mandated for everyone using the console. And of course, the cloud is still there whether or not your console is on or not.

It does because without universal acceptance it won't be supported, it'll be treated like an optional peripheral mostly only supported by 1st party.



I think you just contradicted yourself, but whatever.

Not really, it will happen one way or the other, eventually the idea of not being always connected will be quaint, something only old people fought for. The inevitable has just been delayed.


I never asked for any of the things you mentioned that would supposedly be granted through a "fully online console", nor would I value them if I had them. You see, some of us actually prefer to not share everything we do every second of our lives with huge corporate entities, or ask them permission to play the games we have actually paid for, and so on.

If I want to boot up a game for Fully Online Console X in ten, fifteen (shit, 25+, like some of my NES collection) years' time, will it even work, or will I be told that the mandatory online servers were shut down an age and a half ago and I should go buy something newer?

...So no, fully online consoles can go fuck themselves. I don't want them and I never did.

Fully online to allow support of distributed computing, ai farming, etc, new things to let games evolve. As it stands right now as painfully evidenced at e3, the new games are mostly the same as the old games, just prettier.


The following is somewhat it jest but honestly you wanted a thread to vent soooo ...

Well not really, someone spawned it with a thread title that has nothing to do with what I posted, but whatever. It does indirectly make my point I guess regarding the main stream media not fact checking and just posting whatever to get hits, in this case a thread was spawned with a title that has nothing to do with what I posted, but likely the thread title was picked to generate hits. Perhaps someone would actually re-read what I posted and fix the thread title, but as is the case nowadays that's unlikely.


As someone who's console signs in automatically everytime I turn it on, and who almost exclusively buys DD games for convenience and to avoid disk swapping, the answer is sort of.

Downloaded games are as restrictive as ever now. I can't pick up a disc and just add that game to an account. I have to keep hold of the disc and keep it in the system to play. For the sake of discs, the DD games more and more of us are buying are locked to single accounts/consoles. Difficult to share, impossible to trade.

I guess I really wasn't clear in what I posted. Always online is important to get standardized and universal distributed computing to be accepted and researched into by those that develop the games that we play, that is how we can get that next level of computational power needed to get new game ideas to light. Without it the limited power of the new consoles will get spent on pretty pixels, and then the consoles are all but maxed out meaning what few cycles are left get used to play the same old games with the same old ideas and the same old algorithms. It's all quite frankly old and tired.
 
I'm with Joker.

Every counter point in here is either nonsense about privacy, old platform nostalgia or rants about used games, all while posting to a forum that registers every request to google ad/tag services and doubleclick, in an age where most software sold can't be resold (every mobile platform you own, huge chunk of PC/MAC software).

However, be mad at MS for buckling to these people.

Cheers
 
Since nearly all of us are always online anyway, we can still use cloud power to its fullest. There are already SP games that require a connection. I saw an actual offline countdown in some 360 baseball game.

Just add an "internet connection required" sticker to the box to make it clear.
 
In the "server based augmentations" thread, a significant concern discussed was cost. I think everything you hope for will be achieved on a game-by-game basis for those managing the costs (eg. subscription based games). I don't see that an always online console is fundamental in supporting an always online game (eg. Titanfall). Likewise, MS's cloud facilities aren't going to be disbanded on account of their policy change, so it's not like devs wanting to create always-online games are disadvantaged. Furthermore, other discussions on this board suggest your sweeping generalisations about future attitudes towards gaming are unwarranted. eg. Better AI. Not everyone wants better AI as discussed on this board, ergo where some will lament the lack of AI progress (if there is a lack of AI progress due to lack of cloud computing), others won't.

Other points you raise aren't at all dependent on cloud computing, like original games. We all know that's a dictate of the industry's economics. There's a lots of different game types possible without needing cloud computing, including many that were present on older systems that have been abandoned.

Which brings me back to your entry point to this discussion where you suggest many people were talking about this or that. Unless you are actually totalling numbers (how many individual posters complained of poor internet out of how many, etc.), your view's are just subjective generalisations and not a good basis for reasoned argument. It'd be like me walking around town with a sign asking for people to tell me their favourite colour. I'd only hear from those who cared to say, and if the same people keep coming up to me to say the same colour, it'll give a stronger impression of support for that colour than statistically correct. The most basic requirement to that sort of evaluation is to record the results in a tally and reject duplicate sources.
 
But you want your game to have the biggest potential market segment, so if you put that internet required sticker on, you are there killing X% of your potential customer base ie you will not do that.
Now you could make the game be "better" if internet connection is available, but then again you are segmenting your market. And you end up the "extra cost for cools stuff" vs "how much extra revenue can we get", most likely it does not pay of for the developer.

With that said, this is also what applies to MS for requiring an internet connection, you limit your potential market. So if MS had gone a head with the, "you must have internet to play" then their target market just shrunk with Y%. So I see why they changed.....
 
Is this yet another "who's fault is it" thread?
I don't know what good can come of it when a group of B3Ders are quickly designated as "these people".
 
But you want your game to have the biggest potential market segment, so if you put that internet required sticker on, you are there killing X% of your potential customer base ie you will not do that.
No more so than sticking 'internet required' on the console. Or targeting a next-gen console with 1/10th the current-gen install base. If your game can differentiate itself and sell to a larger segment of a smaller population, it can still be more profitable than the opposite.
 
But you want your game to have the biggest potential market segment, so if you put that internet required sticker on, you are there killing X% of your potential customer base ie you will not do that.

No!

You want to have the most compelling product. The most compelling games console is the one that offers the best experience.

Otherwise go make shovelware for IOS/Android.

Cheers
 
@ joker first off people who complained are fanboys ? now your complaining does that make you a fanboy ? oh sorry a moronic fanboy in your words

secondly, all of your points are lies : (extra bonus for this what your wrote "without care for truth or fact checking" )

you can only have smart a.i if a console has a mandatory connection - really ???

"This game would be so much better if it had more user content."
Ever heard of the elder scrolls yes you have and you know it doesnt lack in user created content and no doubt you know of a huge amount of games with masses of user content and not a single one of them requires and allways on connection from doom onwards (maybe earlier)

"Hmm the physics seem very canned and scripted." Well yeah, that's exactly what you asked for"
Really please supply a quote where someone says "I hope the nextgen games have scripted physics

"I wish the game would change a bit over time to give me more play value". Yeah that would be great, but that's not happening now as per gamers request"
Again please supply that quote...

"Weather simulation is so primitive, I thought this was next gen?"
Are you seriously expecting us to think that you believe realistic weather is only possible with a mandatory connection

You post is nothing but lies and trolling
 
... so while before moronic fanboys crying about stuff was just a good joke to laugh at, now they potentially have the power to have more influence. ...

...
- "Man the ai just isn't that smart." Really? Well too bad, you asked for it by killing off the always connected console.
...
- "This game would be so much better if it had more user content." That's fantastic, but that's what you asked for
...

- "Hmm the physics seem very canned and scripted." Well yeah, that's exactly what you asked for
...

You don't see this as venting ??
 
No!

You want to have the most compelling product. The most compelling games console is the one that offers the best experience.

Otherwise go make shovelware for IOS/Android.

Cheers

Tell that to the investor(s) that puts up the money for creating the game, its less about making the best game ever, its about earning the most money (loosing the least?). This is after all a business, you might disagree, but that is the reality of the video games business.

I mean look at Angry Birds vs The Last of Us, if you ask the owners of Sony, I am willing to bet money that they would have wanted the Angry Birds "franchise" instead of The Last of Us.
 
Cloud processing is great and it will sell. You can say "only 1st parties ...." well great !!! Let's see a first party game that knocks off a few socks. I am very sure that if a 1st party game with lots of Cloudy Transistors packed into it sells well that there will be plenty of devs willing to spend some time and money to make more such games happen.

The Internet isn't a Kinect ... it's always there and when people have a use for it they will use it.
 
No more so than sticking 'internet required' on the console. Or targeting a next-gen console with 1/10th the current-gen install base. If your game can differentiate itself and sell to a larger segment of a smaller population, it can still be more profitable than the opposite.

Sure, but if you came to me and said, I got the a game I want to make. Its great, I just need 100M USD, to make and market it. I will tell you for that kind of cash, you better make it available on every platform under the sun and all the way back to the Commodore CD32 :p
Its after all, about mitigating the risk and increase the odds of earning money on this project.
And if you say that 500M people are the potential buying public, I will be happy, if you say 50M people I am will not be happy and go to vegas with my money instead ;P
 
It'll be like re-hashing Shifty Geezer, but let me put it another way (less elegantly but maybe it adds something to the discussion)

There's nothing that stops developers from putting those enhancements that are brought by online connectivity. If games will be SO much better with online connectivity, and connectivity is indeed not a problem, people will opt to connect anyway, to make their games better. A once-24-hour online check-in requirement doesn't ensure everybody's connection is well suited for cloud augmentations. It just ensures your user base can connect to the internet once every 24 hours. It tells the dev nothing about the quality of those connections. For that same reason, dropping that requirement doesn't stop developers from being able to use the cloud for awesome things that you believe is going to happen.

Dropping the requirement only brought people options, and it would only increase the user base. Just because there's no requirement, people won't disconnect their devices. For most, the social aspects of gaming will require them to connect anyway. And if the cloud is so good, more people would choose to connect. Microsoft, by this policy change, will be able to sell the Xbox to more customers. This policy change will not reduce the number of connected Xboxes. This policy change will increase the number of not-connected boxes, who has a very real chance of connecting if the connected world offers so much goodness.

So you are angry for no good reason. Just as Microsoft dropped the family sharing plan for no good reason.
 
Back
Top