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

[zupallinere]

Because in a sense thats what it is, a peripheral. Cloud is synonymous to a hardware accessory that extends the performance of the XB1. The question is whether a user has the capacity (the internet) or the motivation (hooking the XB1 to their internet) to make use of the accessory. An online requirement would be synonymous to "f*** the accessory part just stick it directly into the box and not give the user a choice of whether to use it or not".

The internet is just the interface for the accessory. An online mandate turns cloud from an accessory to a standard feature.

I can understand anybody consternation over an online mandate because the internet acting an interface between two pieces is hardware is bound to be unstable, unpredictable and unreliable at times. Definitely more so than a physical connection. But given that I am multi console owner, I like as much differentiation as I can get. I don't want a rebadged PS4. I want both Sony and MS to realize their vision of a future console not produce competitors that are basically twins in different clothing.

Yeah I do see the Cloud Compute things as kind of a quasi peripheral but there are some substantial differences between the Cloud connection and a kinect so maybe the primacy of the "in the box" rule can be questioned a bit.

I agree with your assumptions about the demographic holding back the coming cloud'o'copia.

a. Folks who buy the XB1 but don't have internet.
b. Folks who buy the XB1 but haven't attached it to the internet even though they have it.

a. and b. seem very small to me. Not background noise small but close to it. Over time this demo will become background noise with b. shrinking faster than a.

The issue of risk for dev/pub isn't same for a peripheral as the Cloud peripheral. For all intents and purposes getting a cloud game gives you the cloud peripheral for free while hoping a customer will buy the regular peripheral for the game is a more riskier thing

Of course we are only talking about single player games here.

Now the only thing that comes to mind, now that the regular risks associated with 'in the box' rule breaking are mitigated to a noise level (soonish), is that there will be an energizing effect of the online mandate that has nothing to do with risk but some other intoxicating mechanism that I haven't considered. That this state would speed up the cloudy future in ways that regular market forces wouldn't be able to match. I am open to line of thinking but I don't know how you tease out that phenomenon.

I agree with the not wanting twins thing. Would that mean however that you wouldn't want a cloudy PS4 in the name of diversity ? :smile: According to the OP doing so will make the PS4 just another supercharged Atari 2600 as opposed to a REAL next gen system.

 

[BRiT]

*ahem* This is not the thread for Kinect or other Tin-Foil Hat theories. Please think a little before posting. If it doesn't relate to the immediate topic, then don't post it in the thread.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Definitely true, as per TRCs.

Your example is multiplayer only, hence completely irrelevant in this context.

Okay, I hadn't thought along those lines, but are you sure? TRCs allows for peripheral requiring games to be produced. Why not internet-requiring too? Also that's just a rule from the console company. They can change that. It's not like the economics are the issue here in your case. Where the argument is whether mandated internet access is required for cloud adoption, your point doesn't prove that it is apart from satisfying an arbitrary rule.

But I also am not seeing much distinction between online and cloud-enabled. I highly doubt cloud-enabled games will be single player due to the economics. There may be single player elements, like Starhawk's solo campaign training mode, but I expect the intentions of the devs to be to get people online and buying more DLC. A cloud-enabled solo Elder Scrolls is adding a lot more running costs to the game. What's the business incentive behind that? Perhaps more people will buy a better game, but then as long as they player, they are costing you. The same general game designed for offline play will be a lot cheaper in operation.

 

[Bigduo209]

Wouldn't making online an all-or-none mandatory requirement be ridiculous at the system level? I mean there's a "put the cart before the horse" mentality in that approach alone.

Making cloud services an enticing option would be better for now, seeing as how ISPs for online isn't easily affordable, widespread, and/or up to ideal conditions. I can understand bringing up this issue at a later point in the new console generation when the ideal examples for always-online restrictions has popped up in some truly beneficial way.

Why are we even arguing about MS trying to "advance to the future"? MS is trying to advance it's ecosystem of online services and nothing more. Why would a company worth billions of dollars invest in it's Azure and XBL platforms, but not put money towards advancing internet connectivity in the US or other countries? Google is at least trying to open-up things in that area, it may be towards their benefit but it also helps other services/platforms in the process as well.

Clearly MMOs have been prevalent for years so online-dependent games are only getting bigger, and games like Journey and Demon's Souls are innovative in their online functionality while still allowing the core gameplay to work well enough offline. I could see the cloud enhancing AI, physics, and other technical areas, but rendering a game completely useless unless it's online should work on a title-by-title basis.