The Gaming Postwhoring Thread

[Forthisgift]

For PC vs consoles. That's exactly what people said about the xbox. It's still around, so we can pretty much agree that consoles are here to stay.
It's just simpler knowing that you have the metal can that can play games on, without fussing with the hardware.

Okay fine.. consoles are a dependable platform right now for game companies to create on because they don't have to account for any hardware discrepancies and it's very clear what they can do with one once they get the specs and then develop according. BUT lets forget about PC vs consoles for a second.. the real future for all gaming is cloud gaming anyhow. If you don't know what that is, look into it. It's pretty damn interesting. AMD and Nvidia are publicly putting their future into it so this isn't a debatable topic. It's coming. The question is just 'when?'

And 'cloud gaming' does not require a 'always on' internet? I think it actually requires a pretty good internet connection because your are streaming video and you do want your button presses to arrive 'in the cloud' asap...

And when I tried Far Cry 3 on a PC, it installed a licensing checking service which contacts... low and behold something on the internet!

So PC is going to take over Consoles is a non argument for the always-on internet problem, so is the cloud gaming.

The conversation moved away from 'always-on' to just a general discussion of the future of gaming, starting with commentary on PCs, then to consoles, then to PCs vs Consoles, and then to cloud gaming. So you're right, it is a non-argument.. because no one was arguing it. My point in my last post was just to look further down the road to cloud gaming which will replace both. You happen to be right though, it should face the same obstacles that 'always-on' gaming would. However, Xbox's always-on requirement isn't 10-20 years down the road right now like cloud gaming is. Xbox requires 'always-on' now. And like I said previously, the broadband infrastructure in the US is not that wonderful. That being said, in 10-20 years time there's no reason why this can't change. In fact, Google Fiber is already testing the waters in Austin, Texas as we speak. Major hardware companies aren't gambling their futures on a guess when billions of dollars are at stake. Better broadband is coming. People are mad at 'always-on' because it's not here yet and it polarizes the market into the have's and have-nots of reliable connections. I don't know if it's you feeling this way, but it's easy for SOMEONE to sit at their computer with a rock-solid internet connection and say 'what's the big deal??' when the rest of us aren't so lucky. It's simple as that.

[zoolander]

Online required on a system based level is always going to be awful, 10 years from now, 20 years from now, google fiber, whenever. It's not even an issue of good or bad connections because there are so many inherent problems and variables beyond that, and no benefits. On a game-by-game basis it could make since, even if the results have always been pretty dreadful up to this point in MMOs, Sim City, Diablo 3 and the like.

Some new rumors are saying it can play games locally offline, so hopefully earlier rumors were just people misinterpreting some wording or features of a separate device.

Durango itself will also always be online like any other device (correct with rumors), but it will not be a requirement to play local content and it will not prevent playing used games.

The rumors of “always online required” comes from the smaller Xbox unit which may not have a disc drive and like Apple TV it would require a network connection and internet to provide any functionality.

http://www.vgleaks.com/microsoft-xbox-roadmap-2013/


So it's always online... except when it's not? Who knows at this point. I just wanna see the thing revealed hopefully with some interesting new games.

[Asmodai]

And when I tried Far Cry 3 on a PC, it installed a licensing checking service which contacts... low and behold something on the internet!

So PC is going to take over Consoles is a non argument for the always-on internet problem, so is the cloud gaming.

The UPlay thing Far Cry 3 installs has an offline mod. It just checks once, when you install the game, to see if it's legit and then you can set it to never connect again.

There are some PSN (and probably XBLA) games that only work if you're currently logged into your PSN account, so we've already been there for awhile in some ways.

[thatonezombie]

I wanna say, this grown-up, intelligent conversation about always-on/cloud gaming/future of gaming is beautiful. 

It's beautiful because this is is an example of how awesome JPH!P as a community is. Nobody is screaming, "CONSOLEZ 4 LYFE!" or "PC ALL DAY MUTHAFUCKAS!" We love video games and take them seriously. The conversation here is taking each point seriously, and commenting on it in a sound, logical way.

Plus, this proves video games can facilitate a dialogue that I know goes beyond surface level.

As for the current topic at hand, I don't have much to add to it. 

For me, I'm inherently down for games on consoles and PCs to be online always because as zoolander pointed out:

For Publishers/Console Maker
-DRM-gated for piracy prevention
-Control second hand game sales
-More available data on users habits and what not

None of those points bother me as a consumer. Sure, a game like Sim City where nobody could get online to play is a shame, but there are other, arguably much more bigger and pressing issues to that game other than being online. But, if my favorite developers and publishers can have more control over their products, what's the harm in that? If they can lock down more on piracy and second hand sales to have more money in their pockets, go for it. I want developers like Double Fine, Supergiant Games, Blizzard and Rockstar to continue to make games.

Plus, we as the people who play these games have the power to say no. We can spend our money and energy somewhere else.

[Forthisgift]

@Zoolander: I hear you, man... I'm not wholly comforted by anything that's going on right now in gamerland. Personally, I have faith that cloud gaming is going to be kind to us and that ISP's are going to get their collective shit together and come join the 21st century. For example, Verizon willingly and knowingly keeps it's internet speeds slow. They back this up by saying that, "well if people want faster internet, they'd just ask for it.. we have a customer comments section on our website yada yada yada and if enough people ask we'll provide the service" and they SERIOUSLY use this as a defense. It's well documented. God forbid we get our sticky fingers on faster speeds so we can torrent movies at lightning speed. I wonder who Verizon is sleeping with...

@ToZ: Yea, ultimately I have no issue with companies wanting to get their money. I "can't knock the hustle." If legislation isn't going to step up and stop pirating, which leaches company profits, I can't get mad that they're just going to take this all into their own hands do what they have to do to. I just know somewhere in some secret room they had accountants crunching numbers figuring out if 'always on' or anything similar would be a net gain with forcing legitimate purchasing of product outweighing losing some customers. The answer is obviously yes, lol.

Plus, we as the people who play these games have the power to say no. We can spend our money and energy somewhere else.

I don't know how I feel about this.. I tried sitting down before typing out this response to really think this through because I don't really disagree with you but I don't necessarily know how free we really are in this. For example, being free to choose between AMD or Nvidia for graphics cards doesn't make me feel too free. No what I mean? If Xbox and PS want to both go 'always on' and the Wii doesn't how free am I? I don't want a Wii. There's nothing about it aside from the Zelda series (which I've lost interest in) that would even make me consider getting one. Yea, I could spend my money, time and energy somewhere else but I'm a gamer. I don't want to. So we have a vested interest in making noise about things that might not be kosher to protect our interests. In short, I'd say our power here is to make noise.. saying no isn't a real option even though, technically, it can be.

[frblckstr1]

@All in the several posts above

Even with my rather good always-on internet (100Mbit up and 100Mbit down) I'm not going to stream video, so playing games 'in the cloud' is not yet on the menu. I still want my resources locally, the 'every x minutes' check I am not too concerned about. Halo 4 handled that smoothly after say day 1.
SimCity which I actually wanted to try failed so bad I never consider buying it after that. Its use of 'always on' and cloud store/computing should not have happened yet, might be possible in 2-3 years or they should have used Azure (like Halo) or Amazon but that costs money to setup.

BTW, up to two years back I had a ADSL connection (which was about 99.9% up), before that I had a dial-up connection so I know the difference

So how bad is your 'not always on' internet? Does is disconnect for minutes at a time/hours at a time every day all week? Or is there just a hick of a few minutes say once per week? Dial-up connections might be a bit different story.
(and sorry but bad in-house WiFi does not count, that should be repairable in some way even if its using repeaters moving the unit by half a meter or a wired connection)

[Forthisgift]

^ this should answer your question:

[Tuffty]

On a related note, the guy at MS who starter this whole kerfuffle has been sacked. Microsoft were probably jusitified in doing so because of the negative publicity that has surrounded them lately, but it's not worth celebrating about. It's hardly like ousting him is going to change their policies, as much as you might like to think.

[frblckstr1]

^ Hah, didn't know you could have 0G achievements

@Forthisgift, OK slow and low-speed, but that should not give problems enough to fail the 'always online within 3mins' check?

[Forthisgift]

^ I hope you're right. But i sure as hell don't have the golden connection lol.

[zoolander]

None of those points bother me as a consumer. Sure, a game like Sim City where nobody could get online to play is a shame, but there are other, arguably much more bigger and pressing issues to that game other than being online. But, if my favorite developers and publishers can have more control over their products, what's the harm in that? If they can lock down more on piracy and second hand sales to have more money in their pockets, go for it. I want developers like Double Fine, Supergiant Games, Blizzard and Rockstar to continue to make games.

Plus, we as the people who play these games have the power to say no. We can spend our money and energy somewhere else.

I guess I meant those as more the advantages to for publishers. I'm sure someone has made a long list of possible problems forced always online could bring.

However I do see locking down on second hand sales as a big time no no. I would buy far fewer NEW games if I couldn't get trade in deals on stuff I know I won't play anymore (Honestly, I don't even see how it can be legal). Other forms of physical media the buyer owns the product and can do with it what they want but it seems with games they are trying to erode that right of ownership, especially with the emergence of all these digital distribution platforms and users needing to sign away any rights to even enter the ecosystem.

Draconian drm practices dontt stop pirates. In the end it only hinders legitimate customers. With the forced online drm in 20 years when the services are gone, developers are out of business the only way to play some of the games you have bought may be to crack them. Focus on creating a great game consumers actually want to buy and treat them as the #1 priority and it will get you much more loyalty than trying to find tricks and restrictions.

Now games as a service I'm all for. It can be good for the creators and the gamers. Look at something like Minecraft, sold freaking 10 million just off Notch's crappy little site (and another 6 million on xbla).

As for that Adam Orth guy it's not the first time he has made headlines. When he worked at Sony he was all "FUCK HALO" and calling Halo 3 ads disrespectful.

[frblckstr1]

^ I hope you're right. But i sure as hell don't have the golden connection lol.

About 10 years ago (starting to show my age here? ) I had what was called a high speed ADSL connection with 1Mbit down and 128Kbit up, now that was state-of-the-art!

[Forthisgift]

^ I hope you're right. But i sure as hell don't have the golden connection lol.

About 10 years ago (starting to show my age here? ) I had what was called a high speed ADSL connection with 1Mbit down and 128Kbit up, now that was state-of-the-art!

that was on the cutting edge back then I'm sure! I remember going to a friends house after school back in the day just to experience 56k thinking it was the fastest thing ever. I'll never EVER forget the sound of a those dial-up modems...oh my god.

[Tuffty]

Xbox Live couldn't handle the number of matches I won on Crysis 3 and how easy I made it, so that's why it's down completely now. Sorry guys

[zoolander]

I think it's that combined with the fact that I'm just way too pro at Terraria. Booted me right out of the game.

[JFC]

CROSS-POSTING!!!

This is just fuckin' awesome.



Dude has several other vids that he's posted up on his YouTube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SmoothMcGroove/videos

[Jul3]

This could be the game to get me back into videogames:

[winner]

^I wouldn't have my hopes up. The series (and the company) are well-known at being low-budget and really bad.

[Jul3]

^ I love that shit

[thatonezombie]

Hey hey hey hey hey!

Although the queue to register for PAX was long and painful, (what queue isn't?) I was able to get a Monday only pass for PAX Prime. Plus, I had a homey willing to sell me a Friday pass as long as I pay him and sing Bohemian Rhapsody with him in the car. I'm excited!