I guess the Internet is now the NEW Move Controller
Oops, I meant to say "included in the box".
I guess the Internet is now the NEW Move Controller
The better question to ask is that will there be less online connected consoles after microsoft 180?
Another question to ask is that is there something online related mmo developers didn't already figure out?
Is there something preventing the smallest startup not using amazon cloud or kickstarter and revolutionizing online enabled gaming? I think for such startup the market with ps4+xbox one + pc + mac is much larger than what the microsoft only market would have been(and microsoft would still have asked money for the server time, it wasn't to be free)
Why should we expect for example blizzard didn't already figure out what works via server's and what doesn't?
The TOPIC is does the fact that MS doesn't get to say that you MUST be connected to the Internet once every 24 hours ruin gaming for a decade ... NO. Will developers continue to use dedicated servers for MP and throw in a bunch of other Cloud related things into games YES. No one has any idea how valuable Der Cloud is for SP games but I am sure we will find out, maybe slower than you like but ...
The interesting part of that question is it doesn't need to even be answered. That internet is now optional is enough for developers to not support anything cloud related, because ultimately "optional" maps to "developers please don't support this", unless mandated like with 1st parties.
I suppose we have to then agree to disagree. I believe strongly innovation can and will happen. There are many good avenues to innovate and start at low cost. Especially so now that consoles are very close to pc architecture and reasonable performance so it should be easier to shoot for lowest common denominator on local hardware and distribute on all the platforms.
Also the usual non online companies are investing more and more to online enabled content and games(oblivion mmo anyone...). It's just that online might not be the magic bullet to make better AI or better physics. There are a lot of obstacles where reliability and latency are not trivial to overcome. Especially so if gamers will stop playing your game if they hit the worst case too often.
The topic is wrong, it got spawned from my post yet my post has nothing to do with that. I presume its a bogus topic just to get people to look at the thread at my expense, well whatever that's not my problem.
"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.
What I've been trying to get an answer to with my spu question is if people think having something optional will have no effect on developer support.
That ties into my claim of not requiring internet would affect developer plans to support cloud,
Well I don't disagree with that, it will happen one way or the other. It just seemed like Microsoft could have accelerated what otherwise may be a glacial process with their backing of the servers, tools, large audience and so on. It's kind of like how iD put gpu's on the map with their support of them, sometimes one thing can kickstart an entire industry.
Geez you could have fooled me because based on what you first wrote because you seem to be suggesting that the PS4 and the XB1 are just versions of the 2600 because MS did a 180 on the always connected thing.
SPU isn't the same thing.
The thread title says is gaming ruined for the next decade. I never said that. What I said is that next gen is not offering anything new compared to current gen aside from a graphics bump.
You're missing the point of the question, I'm not wasting anymore cycles trying to explain the point to you.
I think the concern over innovation is legitamate but I am not at all convinced that MS is the company to take risk and invest to bring those innovative gaming concepts to the marketplace.
The indie developers are the ones who are most likely to come up with something new so perhaps instead of arguing for cloud and DRM it makes more sense to see what sort of infrastructure is needed to support small studios.
To me the barrier to entry for cloud and so forth are too high for most independents, the cloud will be used for Activision, EA and Ubisoft primarily I am not convinced that any of those publishers will do something creative and innovative.
Small studios would get cloud support as far as I know, as for Indie's I have no clue, perhaps not. I haven't followed the xb1 in much detail at all once they eliminated mandatory online so I honestly have no clue what the state of indies are on that box. On the one hand I can understand wanting indies to have full access to everything, but on the other hand you do want a base level of quality for all titles. Maybe they could do something like Steams Greenlight program, let people have full access to the box but their games can only get on the store if they get greenlit by the gamers.
I've already pointed out my depressing experience with world AI entities in Mafia II. A game which did an admiral attempt at recreating the feel of a populated city, but which was ultimately let down by the absolutely horrendous world NPC AI.
I'm fairly certain we'll see more than just prettier pixels.
Well as far as anybody has been saying most of the added value of the cloud for single player games is really just eye candy. AI is the only thing that adds anything more than Pretty Pixels.