All this dipshit i already got on my PC, so why would i need it ?
Exclusives and cross game friend lists. No other reason.
To me, a friend's list isn't worth more than the convenience of actually playing a game with my friends. Let's take this example:
My friend lives 3 hours away, and gaming is one of the ways we stay in touch after college.
My friend has an Xbox, and I have an Xbox.
I get game A, but my friend doesn't have game A.
Game A has a vibrant co-op campaign.
When I visit my friend, I want to play the co-op of game A with him.
Here's how it would currently play out:
I bring only the disc of game A to my friend's house. We plop it in his Xbox, and jam out in co-op together.
From the sound of the article, here's how it would play out with the new DRM system:
Option #1 - My friend now has to purchase game A, link to his Xbox account, and then we can play together via Xbox live.
Option #2 - I bring my disc for game A and my linked Xbox to my friend's house, and we play the cool co-op together.
Now, playing a simple console game with my friend will become more cumbersome or expensive. This is an unnecessary aggravation.
The "always online" DRM that game companies seem to be pushing will hurt the industry if it is not used on the correct type of game. MMO's are a great place to use an "always online" DRM system because the internet is required for gameplay. However, consoles don't really have popular MMO's, but mostly multiplayer or single player. As an example, Diablo III was a poor choice for that same type of "always online" DRM because.... internet connectivity is not required for the single player component of the game. Case in point:
If my internet connection is poor because I am stationed in Afghanistan, then I am now unable to log in and play the single player version of Diablo III.
This leads to a discussion of internet infrastructure not being where it needs to be, and yadda yadda yadda. More importantly, it leads to unnecessary game purchases. Not every game is like a movie ticket, you don't buy a personal copy for a joint experience. Back to the example, one person buys the game for a joint experience. This would be much more difficult on the proposed "always online" DRM system for consoles.
DRM systems are great for security and anti piracy, but work best in industries that create or promote other industries (Game development software, Maya, Adobe products, Microsoft Office, etc). There are many types of DRM systems, and many reasons for each type of system. Regardless, most DRM systems work well in these industry-creating-industries because the products are not meant to be enjoyed, but rather just used.
Inversly, in the gaming industry, your business will thrive or dive depending on the level of entertainment a customer experiences while using your product. If I play Dead Space 3 and love the co-op, then huzzah, you've gained a new customer or two! However, if I play Dead Space 3 and I am aggravated by the micro-transactions at every step, then bummer, you've lost a customer! The cost of doing business in the entertainment industry is not necessarily money, but rather the entertainment factor of your product (because it determines the amount of money you make).
It's rather tiresome to see companies constantly trying to balance how many deterrent features they can add to a game before it reduces the amount of customer satisfaction a product has. It is as if they created a semi-polished game like D3, and a creative gent comes up with the idea to have a RMAH. Well, if you have that then you have to have some type of security to prevent duping, so DRM "always online" is introduced. Here's another example: let's suppose that you work at EA and have a great game like Sim City 5. You have a near finished game in company hands, but you decide that you should toss in DRM because you want to prevent the unauthorized use of Sim City 5... That later spirals into a PR nightmare. DRM "always online" is meant to prevent loss. However, I believe that it creates as much loss as it prevents.
Instead, companies need to go back to the roots of video games: entertainment and quality. I'd wager that If companies made stellar games that people grow to love and cherish, they will make more money than a decent game with DRM... I will never understand the need to introduce elements into a game that invariably reduce the overall experience of the final product.
Side note: I don't think advances in social interaction in games should be a selling point for "always online" DRM used on a console. Advances in social interaction should be done anyway. We shouldn't be asked to put up with things that detract from our regular gameplay experience in order to have those advances.
Tl;Dr : Things that are sold as entertainment products should not have DRM systems that require "always online" mode if it removes a layer of convenience, prevents proper enjoyment of the product, or makes the product more expensive.
I always had a playstation because i've liked some of the titels like god of war etc.
But with this turnaround, drying out the second hand market etc this is a completly no-go for me.
If you dont like a Game on your PS3, you can sell it on ebay or somewhere.
This is over with the new Generation Consoles.
Thanks god for Steam & Big Picture
I dont need to put up with this anymore.
And yes, the Steam games are locked into a Account as well, but at least you dont need new Hardware...
just a HDMI cable, and a Controller
I am just curious, how long it gonna take before the first Jailbreaks come out for Xbox720, and PS4.
The "always online" DRM that game companies seem to be pushing will hurt the industry if it is not used on the correct type of game. MMO's are a great place to use an "always online" DRM system because the internet is required for gameplay. However, consoles don't really have popular MMO's, but mostly multiplayer or single player. As an example, Diablo III was a poor choice for that same type of "always online" DRM because.... internet connectivity is not required for the single player component of the game. Case in point:
If my internet connection is poor because I am stationed in Afghanistan, then I am now unable to log in and play the single player version of Diablo III.
The absurd amount of units D3 would beg to differ. Steam sales would beg to differ (yes, I know it technically has an offline mode, but it's crap, AND all the sales it gets from straight downloading.
Tl;Dr : Things that are sold as entertainment products should not have DRM systems that require "always online" mode if it removes a layer of convenience, prevents proper enjoyment of the product, or makes the product more expensive.
To be clear, I do agree with this part. Which is why I don't purchase always online DRM games (note, I don't call D3's always online as DRM cause I see it as dupe/hack prevention, which I FULLY support, given the stupidity of Diablo 2 the last few years). I also refused to purchase steam games for along time for the same reason, until I bought my first boxed game that forced me to play it through steam. And I gave up, cause my protest already lost.
I also plan to avoid buying the new xbox if tries to push this always online, no backwards compatibility, single console use only BS.
The "always online" DRM that game companies seem to be pushing will hurt the industry if it is not used on the correct type of game. MMO's are a great place to use an "always online" DRM system because the internet is required for gameplay. However, consoles don't really have popular MMO's, but mostly multiplayer or single player. As an example, Diablo III was a poor choice for that same type of "always online" DRM because.... internet connectivity is not required for the single player component of the game. Case in point:
If my internet connection is poor because I am stationed in Afghanistan, then I am now unable to log in and play the single player version of Diablo III.
The absurd amount of units D3 would beg to differ. Steam sales would beg to differ (yes, I know it technically has an offline mode, but it's crap, AND all the sales it gets from straight downloading.
I'm not sure that box sales for D3 or Steam are fair comparisons here. For example, I know it's been brought up many times before, but initial sales and current player base are two very different numbers for D3. Additionally, the PS3 and Xbox console markets are vastly different than the PC gaming market. What may work for the Steam community may be a jarring experience for PS4 and Xbox 720 market.
I'm sure that the future of gaming is close to that proposed by OnLive. I know they went bankrupt, I know it kind of wasn't a hit, but everyone who tested it was surprised how well it worked, even for games that rely on good latency. The main point was that the market isn't ready for it.
In a few years from now, 4G Internet will be almost everywhere and online only won't be a problem anymore. The technology that OnLive invented must have been really cool, because it somehow magically worked, and due to their financial problems they will eventually need to sell (or at least license) their patents. Then some bad ass company will turn that "stupid idea" into a "must have thing" and basically kill the console market. Applications are going into the cloud already, and it's just the beginning. There will always be some offline games, and there will always be some offline gamers, just like I will prefer a PC and old-fashioned PC game till the end.
All that of course has not much to do with XBox 720/PS 4, sorry. Was just reading over all the "online only" posts and reminded of discussions from 15-20 years ago. You know, when the Internet was basically not invented yet. No one saw it coming (except for Mark Weiser maybe) and no one here actually has even the slightest idea what the gaming industry might look like in another 15 years. Jesse Schell had some awesome thoughts about this in a TED talk, if you're interested. This of course would rather belong in a thread called XBox over 9000/PS 8.
I don't buy used games, what is the point if I am only going to save $5, and then probably have to buy an online pass anyways? If I want a game dirt cheap I will just wait until it is like $15 or something. It's not hard if it isn't a must have.
I don't have a problem with them being always online. The only time I am not online or on a computer is when I am visiting my grandma or something.
I already lug my Ps3 to people's houses so we can co-op on two separate screens close to each other.
I don't like investing time into learning about the newest computer upgrades, how I should build them, and what goes best with what. Luckily my dad does and I just take his handy-down which is already really nice. Right now I am on my 5 years old laptop that I need to heat up with a hair dryer for it to turn on.
So yea, I like consoles, I am still using the same 20gig PS3 I bought at launch, and I am looking forward to the new ones.
What I don't like, is buying retail box PC games, and having to install some bullshit program like Ubisofts Uplay or whatever just so I could play FC3. Or steam for borderlands 2. I found out I could directly install it from the disk, after searching about it online and finding a bullshit way that was so stupid complex it just left me pissed off. At least with consoles I don't have to juggle between these "lets be social" programs to play a damn game. Consoles make my life E-Zaaayyy
PS4 was confirmed to be able to play used games though wasn't it?
Sony has gone on record as saying the PlayStation 4 will not block used games, becoming the first of itself and Microsoft to dismiss rumors of console-locked discs. Shuhei Yoshida spilled the beans in a Eurogamer interview, though apparently he may not have been supposed to.
"Yes. That's the general expectation by consumers," said Yoshida, when asked if he agreed customers have a right to own the discs they bought. "They purchase physical form, they want to use it everywhere, right? So that's my expectation."
When Eurogamer pushed further for a direct confirmation, Yoshida had to ask a PR drone for advice, hoping to get the "official answer to our internal question." After some conferring, the executive returned with what looked like a curt and definitive answer.
Honestly can't say that I am impressed with the new consoles in almost all forms of topics. The issue is that with the games coming out that interest myself and the friends that I have who share the same interests, that I will be "forced" into picking up either (or both) of these consoles when they come out in the fall.
As far as the always online DRM and the Used Game debate. I personally never buy used games as I rarely buy games after their initial release day. With the recent disbanding of rental places in Canada (Rogers, Blockbuster, etc..) there might be more of an inclination to look at buying used games of those that I honestly might play for 10 hours and ignore. But with my high end PC most of those games are just a quick Steam purchase and download anyways. Always online is something that unfortunately will never go away now that it's around. The thing that needs to happen is that it should not affect the playability of the game long term, meaning servers taken down or things that would effectively kill the game. I agree that you do not always have an internet connection or may want to have one. But the world is changing to always online, and this is not just for gaming. Think about it, that when the rest of the world wants to be online, and the gaming industry decides to use it for both good and "bad" (DRM) that it's shunned. It just needs to be better designed and thought of then just what it is in it's current state.
http://www.edge-onli...and-new-kinect/
After the new Patent Sony released for the PS4 to stop Second Hand Games this is the next Turn
http://www.itworld.c...sed-video-games
How do you think about that?
I know for a fact that i wont be buying a new Console any time soon.
All this dipshit i already got on my PC, so why would i need it ?
Those Who Do Not Know True Pain Cannot Possibly Understand True Peace...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise ElderExclusives and cross game friend lists. No other reason.
Ha. Bagstone.
Steam says hi to the latter =)
To me, a friend's list isn't worth more than the convenience of actually playing a game with my friends. Let's take this example:
- My friend lives 3 hours away, and gaming is one of the ways we stay in touch after college.
- My friend has an Xbox, and I have an Xbox.
- I get game A, but my friend doesn't have game A.
- Game A has a vibrant co-op campaign.
- When I visit my friend, I want to play the co-op of game A with him.
Here's how it would currently play out:- I bring only the disc of game A to my friend's house. We plop it in his Xbox, and jam out in co-op together.
From the sound of the article, here's how it would play out with the new DRM system:- Option #1 - My friend now has to purchase game A, link to his Xbox account, and then we can play together via Xbox live.
- Option #2 - I bring my disc for game A and my linked Xbox to my friend's house, and we play the cool co-op together.
Now, playing a simple console game with my friend will become more cumbersome or expensive. This is an unnecessary aggravation.The "always online" DRM that game companies seem to be pushing will hurt the industry if it is not used on the correct type of game. MMO's are a great place to use an "always online" DRM system because the internet is required for gameplay. However, consoles don't really have popular MMO's, but mostly multiplayer or single player. As an example, Diablo III was a poor choice for that same type of "always online" DRM because.... internet connectivity is not required for the single player component of the game. Case in point:
- If my internet connection is poor because I am stationed in Afghanistan, then I am now unable to log in and play the single player version of Diablo III.
This leads to a discussion of internet infrastructure not being where it needs to be, and yadda yadda yadda. More importantly, it leads to unnecessary game purchases. Not every game is like a movie ticket, you don't buy a personal copy for a joint experience. Back to the example, one person buys the game for a joint experience. This would be much more difficult on the proposed "always online" DRM system for consoles.DRM systems are great for security and anti piracy, but work best in industries that create or promote other industries (Game development software, Maya, Adobe products, Microsoft Office, etc). There are many types of DRM systems, and many reasons for each type of system. Regardless, most DRM systems work well in these industry-creating-industries because the products are not meant to be enjoyed, but rather just used.
Inversly, in the gaming industry, your business will thrive or dive depending on the level of entertainment a customer experiences while using your product. If I play Dead Space 3 and love the co-op, then huzzah, you've gained a new customer or two! However, if I play Dead Space 3 and I am aggravated by the micro-transactions at every step, then bummer, you've lost a customer! The cost of doing business in the entertainment industry is not necessarily money, but rather the entertainment factor of your product (because it determines the amount of money you make).
It's rather tiresome to see companies constantly trying to balance how many deterrent features they can add to a game before it reduces the amount of customer satisfaction a product has. It is as if they created a semi-polished game like D3, and a creative gent comes up with the idea to have a RMAH. Well, if you have that then you have to have some type of security to prevent duping, so DRM "always online" is introduced. Here's another example: let's suppose that you work at EA and have a great game like Sim City 5. You have a near finished game in company hands, but you decide that you should toss in DRM because you want to prevent the unauthorized use of Sim City 5... That later spirals into a PR nightmare. DRM "always online" is meant to prevent loss. However, I believe that it creates as much loss as it prevents.
Instead, companies need to go back to the roots of video games: entertainment and quality. I'd wager that If companies made stellar games that people grow to love and cherish, they will make more money than a decent game with DRM... I will never understand the need to introduce elements into a game that invariably reduce the overall experience of the final product.
Side note: I don't think advances in social interaction in games should be a selling point for "always online" DRM used on a console. Advances in social interaction should be done anyway. We shouldn't be asked to put up with things that detract from our regular gameplay experience in order to have those advances.
Tl;Dr : Things that are sold as entertainment products should not have DRM systems that require "always online" mode if it removes a layer of convenience, prevents proper enjoyment of the product, or makes the product more expensive.
But with this turnaround, drying out the second hand market etc this is a completly no-go for me.
If you dont like a Game on your PS3, you can sell it on ebay or somewhere.
This is over with the new Generation Consoles.
Thanks god for Steam & Big Picture
I dont need to put up with this anymore.
And yes, the Steam games are locked into a Account as well, but at least you dont need new Hardware...
just a HDMI cable, and a Controller
I am just curious, how long it gonna take before the first Jailbreaks come out for Xbox720, and PS4.
To be clear, I do agree with this part. Which is why I don't purchase always online DRM games (note, I don't call D3's always online as DRM cause I see it as dupe/hack prevention, which I FULLY support, given the stupidity of Diablo 2 the last few years). I also refused to purchase steam games for along time for the same reason, until I bought my first boxed game that forced me to play it through steam. And I gave up, cause my protest already lost.
I also plan to avoid buying the new xbox if tries to push this always online, no backwards compatibility, single console use only BS.
I'm not sure that box sales for D3 or Steam are fair comparisons here. For example, I know it's been brought up many times before, but initial sales and current player base are two very different numbers for D3. Additionally, the PS3 and Xbox console markets are vastly different than the PC gaming market. What may work for the Steam community may be a jarring experience for PS4 and Xbox 720 market.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorIn a few years from now, 4G Internet will be almost everywhere and online only won't be a problem anymore. The technology that OnLive invented must have been really cool, because it somehow magically worked, and due to their financial problems they will eventually need to sell (or at least license) their patents. Then some bad ass company will turn that "stupid idea" into a "must have thing" and basically kill the console market. Applications are going into the cloud already, and it's just the beginning. There will always be some offline games, and there will always be some offline gamers, just like I will prefer a PC and old-fashioned PC game till the end.
All that of course has not much to do with XBox 720/PS 4, sorry. Was just reading over all the "online only" posts and reminded of discussions from 15-20 years ago. You know, when the Internet was basically not invented yet. No one saw it coming (except for Mark Weiser maybe) and no one here actually has even the slightest idea what the gaming industry might look like in another 15 years. Jesse Schell had some awesome thoughts about this in a TED talk, if you're interested. This of course would rather belong in a thread called XBox over 9000/PS 8.
I don't have a problem with them being always online. The only time I am not online or on a computer is when I am visiting my grandma or something.
I already lug my Ps3 to people's houses so we can co-op on two separate screens close to each other.
I don't like investing time into learning about the newest computer upgrades, how I should build them, and what goes best with what. Luckily my dad does and I just take his handy-down which is already really nice. Right now I am on my 5 years old laptop that I need to heat up with a hair dryer for it to turn on.
So yea, I like consoles, I am still using the same 20gig PS3 I bought at launch, and I am looking forward to the new ones.
What I don't like, is buying retail box PC games, and having to install some bullshit program like Ubisofts Uplay or whatever just so I could play FC3. Or steam for borderlands 2. I found out I could directly install it from the disk, after searching about it online and finding a bullshit way that was so stupid complex it just left me pissed off. At least with consoles I don't have to juggle between these "lets be social" programs to play a damn game. Consoles make my life E-Zaaayyy
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Wise Elderhttp://www.destructoid.com/sony-ps4-won-t-block-used-games-246220.phtml
As far as the always online DRM and the Used Game debate. I personally never buy used games as I rarely buy games after their initial release day. With the recent disbanding of rental places in Canada (Rogers, Blockbuster, etc..) there might be more of an inclination to look at buying used games of those that I honestly might play for 10 hours and ignore. But with my high end PC most of those games are just a quick Steam purchase and download anyways. Always online is something that unfortunately will never go away now that it's around. The thing that needs to happen is that it should not affect the playability of the game long term, meaning servers taken down or things that would effectively kill the game. I agree that you do not always have an internet connection or may want to have one. But the world is changing to always online, and this is not just for gaming. Think about it, that when the rest of the world wants to be online, and the gaming industry decides to use it for both good and "bad" (DRM) that it's shunned. It just needs to be better designed and thought of then just what it is in it's current state.