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

[dobwal]

If enforcing every console is online comes at the cost of half the potential console owners (if 50% don't buy the console because it phones home every 24 hours), it doesn't make any difference. 50% of 40 million consoles == 100% of 20 million consoles. We can all guess whatever figures to make whatever arguments, but the companies have enough real data to know what percentage of consoles are connected to the internet, and enough publishers are choosing to make online only games (effectively in some cases, with short offline campaigns) that it can't be a problem, and proportion of offline consoles will surely decrease over time as the world and users become more internetted in general.

Regardless if you have 20 or 40 million console users, most devs will almost always target the entire userbase. If a dev is willing to target a console with userbase of 20 million doesn't mean they would readily target just half the userbase in a reality where that console had 40 million users.

This wasn't about a handful of online titles. It was about encouraging online as a standard across XB1 development.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's their fault then. If they're too stupid to understand the reality of the numbers and how to impacts their choices, this discussion is kinda moot. But also along those lines, who's going to target XB1's on the cloud but not XB1s+PS4s, ergo eliminating that 'guaranteed always online" user base? The choice of market is either 20 million online XB1s and 20 million offline and 40 million offline PS4s, or 40 million online XB1s and 40 million offline PS4s. Or, by my guesstimate, 70-80% of all consoles because most are willing to go online for the right game.

 

[zupallinere]

Regardless if you have 20 or 40 million console users, most devs will almost always target the entire userbase. If a dev is willing to target a console with userbase of 20 million doesn't mean they would readily target just half the userbase in a reality where that console had 40 million users.

This wasn't about a handful of online titles. It was about encouraging online as a standard across XB1 development.

Well I know ONE company with intimate knowledge on the subject and decided that sales of an always on console wasn't going to help usher in the TRUE next generation console future.

So from the above logic devs... I mean publishers would rather MS rip out the wifi and make it a costly peripheral as long as there is an ethernet port and an always online mandate. If numbers don't really matter they should have started this with the Original Xbox !!

 

[dobwal]

Well I know ONE company with intimate knowledge on the subject and decided that sales of an always on console wasn't going to help usher in the TRUE next generation console future.

So from the above logic devs... I mean publishers would rather MS rip out the wifi and make it a costly peripheral as long as there is an ethernet port and an always online mandate. If numbers don't really matter they should have started this with the Original Xbox !!

what are you talking about?

 

[zupallinere]

what are you talking about?

It's a joke obviously about the Xbox Original.

Of course since you are saying that a potential 20 million console deficit isn't all that important to a publisher compared to whether or not there is a always-on mandate on a product then that speaks to the primacy of the "in the box" rule.

always on sells 20 million, not always on 40 million. Whether or not a publishers would add cloud compute functionality depends only on the always on component with little issue coming from the potential sales differential.

Similarly if MS was to have not had built in wifi, which adds lots of value when it comes to online connectivity IMHO, the loss of sales from such a move would not be all that important compared to the always online mandate when it comes to adding cloud compute functionality to a game or generation of games.

 

[dobwal]

That's their fault then. If they're too stupid to understand the reality of the numbers and how to impacts their choices, this discussion is kinda moot. But also along those lines, who's going to target XB1's on the cloud but not XB1s+PS4s, ergo eliminating that 'guaranteed always online" user base? The choice of market is either 20 million online XB1s and 20 million offline and 40 million offline PS4s, or 40 million online XB1s and 40 million offline PS4s. Or, by my guesstimate, 70-80% of all consoles because most are willing to go online for the right game.

Yep it is their fault. Regardless if you believe the response was irrational or rational. It is what it is. Its the reality of operating in the console space and MS seemed totally unprepared and couldn't properly handle the situation.

In terms of encouraging online as a standard component across games, 100% of user online wouldn't have probably been enough to encouraged every pub from going online. That would probably require other incentives on MS's part.

With 100% of Xb1 users being online, it would have been cheaper for MS to provide those incentives. MS would have to offer cheap integration, cheap fees and marketing partnership for any deep and intergral intergration of MS's cloud.

And your guesstimate is probably right. My guesstimate is that 70-80% pubs aren't willing to go online outside of basic multiplayer unless those features are readily used by the vast majority of the userbase.

 

[dobwal]

It's a joke obviously about the Xbox Original.

Of course since you are saying that a potential 20 million console deficit isn't all that important to a publisher compared to whether or not there is a always-on mandate on a product then that speaks to the primacy of the "in the box" rule.

always on sells 20 million, not always on 40 million. Whether or not a publishers would add cloud compute functionality depends only on the always on component with little issue coming from the potential sales differential.

Im am not saying its not important. I am saying pubs to don't see 100% of 20 million as the same as 50% of 40 million. 100% of 20 million is every console owner is a potential customer. 50% of 40 million represents taking half of the userbase off the table.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yep it is their fault.

Not sure if you're talking MS or pubs here. I meant the publishers are at fault. If they would give the go ahead to a cloud enabled game for 100% of 20 million online consoles, but consider it too risky to release a cloud enabled game for 50% of 40 million consoles, they're stupid and irrational. It's exactly the same market size with exactly the same costs and returns!

 

[hesido]

That's their fault then. If they're too stupid to understand the reality of the numbers and how to impacts their choices, this discussion is kinda moot. But also along those lines, who's going to target XB1's on the cloud but not XB1s+PS4s, ergo eliminating that 'guaranteed always online" user base? The choice of market is either 20 million online XB1s and 20 million offline and 40 million offline PS4s, or 40 million online XB1s and 40 million offline PS4s. Or, by my guesstimate, 70-80% of all consoles because most are willing to go online for the right game.

It turns out, forums are informative but it usually doesn't change people's minds. No matter what we say, people with opposing idea will keep on thinking the offline Xbox users ruined their cloud party, not taking into account the restrictive nature of the proposed DRM was turning off even customers with broadband, not taking into account there's close to 0 probability that the online mandate would result in significantly more connected users, and people who have no access to the internet could choose to buy PS4's instead of buy a broadband subscription for the Xbox one, not taking into account the PS4 without the mandate, not taking into account that Sony and MS has most probably very precise statistics of connected devices, not taking into account its the ACTIVE user base that counts, which means you better have connection statistics anyway and not hardware sales numbers.

According to those with the claims that the reversal hurt the cloud, simply because devs would probably want to target more users, they are somehow not to be blamed for ignoring cloud but the people who wanted the offline option should take the blame, because they ruined the cloud party by not having broadband as they acted as viable customers to the devs. This is the idea that we cannot seem to change.

 

[dobwal]

Not sure if you're talking MS or pubs here. I meant the publishers are at fault. If they would give the go ahead to a cloud enabled game for 100% of 20 million online consoles, but consider it too risky to release a cloud enabled game for 50% of 40 million consoles, they're stupid and irrational. It's exactly the same market size with exactly the same costs and returns!

MS. I misunderstood your point. Sorry.

Its not considered too risky. Its too narrow. Its a matter of maximizing sales.

 

[hesido]

It's exactly the same market size with exactly the same costs and returns!

If publishers will indeed ignore the cloud in a such an environment, the smart publisher will be able to differentiate its online enhanced game in such a market, and see better returns compared to those that do not make use of the cloud because they are afraid to ignore the offline users. -I should add, that a game does not need to ignore offline users to make compelling use of the cloud, since like we discussed elsewhere, games would most probably need backup mechanisms when cloud isn't responsive for any kind of reasons.

 

[Gubbi]

Not sure if you're talking MS or pubs here. I meant the publishers are at fault. If they would give the go ahead to a cloud enabled game for 100% of 20 million online consoles, but consider it too risky to release a cloud enabled game for 50% of 40 million consoles, they're stupid and irrational. It's exactly the same market size with exactly the same costs and returns!

You're missing the point. All games have to run on all consoles.

In your first case above, there is 0% offline users, in the second, there is 50%. Now the developer has to develop a fall back for the 50% offline consoles.

That is going to cost one way or the other. Either the developer/publisher decides it isn't worth the bother with cloud based AI/perma-world/global illumination/whatever at all, or they have to limit the scope of said features because they have to run satisfactory on an offline console.

It is the exact same scenario with this gen's 360s, where every game has to run on the HDD-less models

That limits the experience for the connected console vis a vis a scenario where everybody can be expected to be online.

That

Fucking

Sucks

Cheers

 

[hesido]

You're missing the point. All games have to run on all consoles.

Online only games doesn't have to run on offline consoles.

In your first case above, there is 0% offline users, in the second, there is 50%. Now the developer has to develop a fall back for the 50% offline consoles.

If hope you don't think devs would not need fallbacks simply because the console can check in once every 24 hours.

 

[zupallinere]

Im am not saying its not important. I am saying pubs to don't see 100% of 20 million as the same as 50% of 40 million. 100% of 20 million is every console owner is a potential customer. 50% of 40 million represents taking half of the userbase off the table.

Right not unimportant but if one was to choose the 100% of 20 million over the 50% of 40 million you would say that the primary driving force is not total sales but total penetration of the game. I understand the dynamic here and I am not trying to argumentative but I am trying to understand the logic of thinking that the Internet is being treated here as another version of the the kinect controller. A version of a kinect controller that has upwards of 90+% penetration and will just increase as time goes on whether or not games are written for it.

 

[dobwal]

If publishers will indeed ignore the cloud in a such an environment, the smart publisher will be able to differentiate its online enhanced game in such a market, and see better returns compared to those that do not make use of the cloud because they are afraid to ignore the offline users. -I should add, that a game does not need to ignore offline users to make compelling use of the cloud, since like we discussed elsewhere, games would most probably need backup mechanisms when cloud isn't responsive for any kind of reasons.

Thats a given. Where you have success, pubs will flock. It Kinect games sold 20 million every time out, nobody would make non Kinect games for the 360.

Not many are encouraged to include Kinect functionality in 360 games because of its limited userbase. Thereby, you don't have deep exploration of Kinect utilities in games because most devs don't bother with it outside of maybe basic voice commands and uses we have all seen before.

 

[zupallinere]

It turns out, forums are informative but it usually doesn't change people's minds

Quite the opposite in fact as forums seem to create a hard shell around peoples minds

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You're missing the point. All games have to run on all consoles.

Untrue. That is, any game that's online only requires you take the console online (eg. Warhawk). Publishers don't have to make a game that runs offline. We have developers next-gen who are deliberately shunning offline consoles. A publisher who thinks they have to target every console is a bit crap at their job - a game could be a blockbuster money-turner by being online for a subset of the total install base (eg. WoW). And of course, any 3rd party targeting always online XB1 has to also be eyeing not-online PS4s, which undoes the XB1 connectivity situation just as well as not online XB1's would.

20 M online XB1s, 20 M offline = "Ignore the cloud, we need to target everyone"
40 M online XB1s, 0 M offline = "Use the cloud, everyone's online"
40 M online XB1s, 40 M offline PS4s = "Ignore the cloud, we need to target everyone"

I'm just not seeing any logic to the justification of forced online as a requirement to getting the cloud adopted except for first-party titles, which can still go cloud and promote people to go online (eg. Warhawk again!).

 

[Gubbi]

Untrue.

Definitely true, as per TRCs.

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

Cheers

 

[dobwal]

Untrue. That is, any game that's online only requires you take the console online (eg. Warhawk). Publishers don't have to make a game that runs offline. We have developers next-gen who are deliberately shunning offline consoles. A publisher who thinks they have to target every console is a bit crap at their job - a game could be a blockbuster money-turner by being online for a subset of the total install base (eg. WoW). And of course, any 3rd party targeting always online XB1 has to also be eyeing not-online PS4s, which undoes the XB1 connectivity situation just as well as not online XB1's would.

20 M online XB1s, 20 M offline = "Ignore the cloud, we need to target everyone"
40 M online XB1s, 0 M offline = "Use the cloud, everyone's online"
40 M online XB1s, 40 M offline PS4s = "Ignore the cloud, we need to target everyone"

I'm just not seeing any logic to the justification of forced online as a requirement to getting the cloud adopted except for first-party titles, which can still go cloud and promote people to go online (eg. Warhawk again!).

Its not about shunning offline or online. Pubs aren't crap but maybe unconvinced. Basic multiplayer is pretty common feature of a lot of titles. MS is encouraging investment in features that have no history in terms of acceptance or success.

We are talking about investing in features that for now are not applicable to the PS4. So not only are pubs looking at the prospect of designing features around a subset of overall console users, they are looking at a subset of XB1 users with no ideal how well such features will be accepted by those users.

 

[dobwal]

Right not unimportant but if one was to choose the 100% of 20 million over the 50% of 40 million you would say that the primary driving force is not total sales but total penetration of the game. I understand the dynamic here and I am not trying to argumentative but I am trying to understand the logic of thinking that the Internet is being treated here as another version of the the kinect controller. A version of a kinect controller that has upwards of 90+% penetration and will just increase as time goes on whether or not games are written for it.

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.