Support NeoGAF

[Demon Ice]

I guess no one on GAF has recently played Blizzard's games.

Apparently Blizzard can do no harm.

I haven't played a Blizzard game since Warcraft 3, I don't remember what type of DRM that game had.

Developers have been moving in that direction to require online to play their PC games.

EA's Origin
Ubisoft
Blizzard

Origin has an offline mode that I've used several times without issue. And I thought Ubisoft was dropping their always online DRM? I play Assassin's Creed 3 and Far Cry 3 with Uplay in offline mode but I don't know if that's the same as playing fully disconnected.

 

[saunderez]

Developers have been moving in that direction to require online to play their PC games.

EA's Origin
Ubisoft
Blizzard

There's no confirmation from Sony, but it would seem foolish and naive that they aren't considering it. The fact that the PS4's BC for PS3 games and downloadable arcade titles require online streaming is just a start.

With more games that are going to toy around with cross-online play (e.g. Destiny), seems like always online is going to be the requirement in the future.

Then it's time for me to play indie games exclusively I guess. Sure I'll miss the big releases but I'll save a tonne of money and I won't be part of promoting this anti-consumer bullshit.

 

[Dahbomb]

I guess no one on GAF has recently played Blizzard's games.

Apparently Blizzard can do no harm.

You should start up a Diablo 3 thread stating how Blizzard can do no harm.

 

[clav]

Then it's time for me to play indie games exclusively I guess. Sure I'll miss the big releases but I'll save a tonne of money and I won't be part of promoting this anti-consumer bullshit.

Yeah the future sucks.

You should start up a Diablo 3 thread stating how Blizzard can do no harm.

Made a ton of money.

With Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm's nearing its release date, looks like Activision Blizzard is set on making a lot of money again despite the DRM implementation.

 

[amrod]

Come on cheaper games! With no used games and always on there should be lower (or no) piracy, both of which are blamed for the high price of games

 

[Concept17]

I guess no one on GAF has recently played Blizzard's games.

Apparently Blizzard can do no harm.

You obviously are completely unaware of the mass hatred towards all things Diablo3 around here then.

 

[clav]

You obviously are completely unaware of the mass hatred towards all things Diablo3 around here then.

People still played it and most importantly paid for it.

Same with Starcraft 2.

 

[Mandoric]

Developers have been moving in that direction to require online to play their PC games.

EA's Origin
Ubisoft
Blizzard

There's no confirmation from Sony, but it would seem foolish and naive that they aren't considering it. The fact that the PS4's BC for PS3 games and downloadable arcade titles require online streaming is just a start.

With more games that are going to toy around with cross-online play (e.g. Destiny), seems like always online is going to be the requirement in the future.

Eh. I think at this point Sony's proven that they need publishers less than publishers need them. The PS3 had absolutely miserable support until 2010ish and still probably would've been profitable if built on commodity hardware like the PS4 is. Reaping the better consumer goodwill of "only" having online passes is a far smarter long-game decision.

It's a far smarter long-game decision for MS too, and would be even if developers threatened to jump ship to Sony. You can't ignore 10-15 million units and both sides can sell that just on first party and hypewagon.

If either one does do this, it's going to be part of a broader ecosystem move, and MS is the one that's pushing a single signin across all of your devices with shared app access.

 

[Zeal]

I honestly believe it will be the end of the console industry.

In all reality, it really could cause a crash.

 

[Duxxy3]

Made a ton of money.

They made a ton of money because of Diablo 2's good name. They destroyed that reputation.

 

[clav]

They made a ton of money because of Diablo 2's good name. They destroyed that reputation.

We'll see if that reputation holds up for Heart of the Swarm.

 

[Zeal]

Same here. This is absolutely idiotic if true. Even the best internet services have blackouts for any number of reasons. Shitty weather, internet's down? Oh look, I can't play my Xbox. Fucking stupid.

That's why I just can't accept this as being true. I know the real reason is that MS is desperate to stop piracy with their next console in any way possible, and an always online connection could theoretically do that. This will also effectively stop used games by running the serial sever side and checking the games, etc.

But the consumer backlash would be on levels never witnessed...like ever.

 

[Duxxy3]

We'll see if that reputation holds up for Heart of the Swarm.

Diablo isn't starcraft. It still has a fairly good reputation.

Starcraft doesn't require a persistent connection. It checks for a connection every few weeks.

 

[Spongebob]

Blimey, I can't believe Microsoft have been this dim-witted if true. Not allowing the use of second hand gamesgis a huge mistake. I thought that they'd have trouble shifting units because of the cost given what's been leaked of the hardware but always online and no second hand games? I think this may flop unless it's asacheap as chips. Unbelievable.

Going to be interesting to see what, if anything, Sony are going to do about second hand games. If they decide to do a similar thing I can see that being a dealbreaker for a fair few people.

Are you the same "thesnowdog" from the gametrailers forums?

Nothing leaked thus far would be expensive, not sure what you're talking about.

 

[clav]

Diablo 3 isn't starcraft. It still has a fairly good reputation.

Starcraft doesn't require a persistent connection. It checks for a connection every few weeks.

That's where things get messy though.

You have an offline profile and an online profile. If you began campaign online (which you will since the game requires activation), you can't continue campaign unless you sign in to that profile.

 

[Mandoric]

They made a ton of money because of Diablo 2's good name. They destroyed that reputation.

I think they'll reliably be able to keep pushing it. Half of ten million is still deep into AAA territory, and the same Starcraft fanbase that chants "LAN! LAN!" at the developers when their shitty DRM porks a finals match are still lining up for HotS. And of course, when all else fails, you just offer your new game free with a year of WoW and book those as sales.

 

[Duxxy3]

That's where things get messy though.

You have an offline profile and an online profile. If you began campaign online, you can't continue campaign unless you sign in to that profile.

I get your point but there's still an option to play offline.

If diablo 3 had this same system wouldn't see nearly as many complaints as you do.

I think they'll reliably be able to keep pushing it. Half of ten million is still deep into AAA territory, and the same Starcraft fanbase that chants "LAN! LAN!" at the developers when their shitty DRM porks a finals match are still lining up for HotS. And of course, when all else fails, you just offer your new game free with a year of WoW and book those as sales.

I do think they should be using a tournament version of the game to prevent things like this.

 

[Y2Kev]

I guess no one on GAF has recently played Blizzard's games.

Apparently Blizzard can do no harm.

You know, I'm seeing this a lot, but I don't really get it. Even Blizzard's games don't really sell enough to base a console around. Microsoft's newest statistics are, what, 76MM Xboxes shipped and ~50MM Live accounts? That's 25 million people that aren't even connected (and I'm not going to estimate the number of duplicate accounts...I have three myself, but whatever). Diablo 3 sold 12 million, but aren't you going to fundamentally cut your userbase for this?

And Blizzard gets a ridiculous amount of shit around here, by the way.

 

[clav]

And Blizzard gets a ridiculous amount of shit around here, by the way.

But why do people keep buying their games then if it's that big of a deal?

 

[Massa]

You know, I'm seeing this a lot, but I don't really get it. Even Blizzard's games don't really sell enough to base a console around. Microsoft's newest statistics are, what, 76MM Xboxes shipped and ~50MM Live accounts? That's 25 million people that aren't even connected (and I'm not going to estimate the number of duplicate accounts...I have three myself, but whatever). Diablo 3 sold 12 million, but aren't you going to fundamentally cut your userbase for this?

And Blizzard gets a ridiculous amount of shit around here, by the way.

I think the question is: are these people not connecting online because they can't, or simply because they have no reason to? For example, does someone who buys an Xbox 360 with Skylanders have any reason to sign up for Xbox Live? They probably just hook it up to a TV and call it a day.

 

[Y2Kev]

But why do people keep buying their games then if it's that big of a deal?

I don't understand. They're different groups of people. What's the supposition? That the same people that are complaining on GAF are the ones buying their software? I'm sure there is some overlap, but you'd need to really expand on what you're trying to say here.

I believe there are lots of people who dislike this and give Blizzard shit (for this principle), I believe there are tons of people who give Blizzard shit over the quality of their games, and then I also believe there are tons (demonstrably more) people who would buy their software anyway.

I think the question is: are these people not connecting online because they can't, or simply because they have no reason to? For example, does someone who buys an Xbox 360 with Skylanders have any reason to sign up for Xbox Live? They probably just hook it up to a TV and call it a day.

Can't meaning can't physically establish the connection (i.e. console in attic somewhere), don't have the hardware, or don't know how? And from your original question, which do you think is more easily correctable (normative question, I know)?

 

[bro1]

You know, I'm seeing this a lot, but I don't really get it. Even Blizzard's games don't really sell enough to base a console around. Microsoft's newest statistics are, what, 76MM Xboxes shipped and ~50MM Live accounts? That's 25 million people that aren't even connected (and I'm not going to estimate the number of duplicate accounts...I have three myself, but whatever). Diablo 3 sold 12 million, but aren't you going to fundamentally cut your userbase for this?

And Blizzard gets a ridiculous amount of shit around here, by the way.

Those 25 million that aren't on live aren't generating any ad revenue and probably don't buy that many games compared to the 52million that are on Live. If the hardware is a loss leader and you make your money on ad revenue (xbox live ads) and game sales why cater to those that don't buy many games or aren't exposed to your ads?

 

[Concept17]

You know, I'm seeing this a lot, but I don't really get it. Even Blizzard's games don't really sell enough to base a console around. Microsoft's newest statistics are, what, 76MM Xboxes shipped and ~50MM Live accounts? That's 25 million people that aren't even connected (and I'm not going to estimate the number of duplicate accounts...I have three myself, but whatever). Diablo 3 sold 12 million, but aren't you going to fundamentally cut your userbase for this?

And Blizzard gets a ridiculous amount of shit around here, by the way.

Yeah a bit too much. If Diablo 2 never existed, and we just got Diablo 3, there would be a lot less hatred. Point being is that D3 is still a good game. There are some truly exceptional aspects to it. But people had certain expectations when it came to loot and replayability that were simply ruined by poor design choices by Blizzard. But this does not make them a bad developer.

People will continue to go out and buy their games because despite a couple bad decisions here and there, their games are still great.

Also, in regards to Xbox, its much different when its a single or even a handful of software. An entire platform under this restriction would be considerably worse.

 

[Voice of Reason]

But why do people keep buying their games then if it's that big of a deal?

Well, considering Diablo 3 is their most recent game, which happened to be a disappointment, we'll see how their next game fares in terms of sales.

And you can't compare a single game with a console. There is no competition with Diablo, as it's the biggest dungeon crawler franchise of all time, but someone can easily get a PS4 to do what a Xbox 720 doesn't. A console is also a bigger investment, so they can easily be discouraged by something like this.

 

[LtOrange]

I know I am in the minority but if this pushes developers to come up with more creative online experiences I am more than excited. Dark Souls, Borderlands and Crackdown have been my most memorable experiences this past gen. Bring on the multiplayer!

 

[Y2Kev]

Those 25 million that aren't on live aren't generating any ad revenue and probably don't buy that many games compared to the 52million that are on Live. If the hardware is a loss leader and you make your money on ad revenue (xbox live ads) and game sales why cater to those that don't buy many games or aren't exposed to your ads?

Well the hardware is not a loss leader when you're talking about that many people. By the time you are selling to your 52nd million, the hardware is profitable (you've seen Microsoft's results I'm sure).

Though it does beg the question...does Microsoft mind sacrificing those who can't connect (or won't connect) for a more active and "commercial" but more limited user base?

 

[Baby Milo]

subscriptions for office now?

what in the fuck is going on?

 

[Y2Kev]

subscriptions for office now?

what in the fuck is going on?

This isn't that new. Office 365. I think it's not too bad a model depending on the type of user you are.

 

[clav]

Well the hardware is not a loss leader when you're talking about that many people. By the time you are selling to your 52nd million, the hardware is profitable (you've seen Microsoft's results I'm sure).

Though it does beg the question...does Microsoft mind sacrificing those who can't connect (or won't connect) for a more active and "commercial" but more limited user base?

Perhaps the ones who are not connected actually don't buy any games, so they don't matter.

Has anyone ever met one of these disconnected Xbox users?

This isn't that new. Office 365. I think it's not too bad a model depending on the type of user you are.

There is a free variant of it that actually works pretty well. I think recently Microsoft removed the restriction of requiring a SkyDrive account to use it.

Edit: The no-account requirement only applies if a user set a document to be editable with a link.

http://blogs.windows.com/skydrive/b...n-skydrive-now-with-easier-collaboration.aspx

 

[Mandoric]

Perhaps the ones who are not connected actually don't buy any games, so they don't matter.

Has anyone ever met anyone who met one of these disconnected Xbox users?

I have (multiple, lol) Live accounts, but I only plug my 360 in to run stuff from XBLIG. I think it's a very depressing commentary on the quality of a console's games if you can't imagine its users buying it just for them, and we're still nowhere near MP as main mode in everything.

 

[Toski]

Well the hardware is not a loss leader when you're talking about that many people. By the time you are selling to your 52nd million, the hardware is profitable (you've seen Microsoft's results I'm sure).

Though it does beg the question...does Microsoft mind sacrificing those who can't connect (or won't connect) for a more active and "commercial" but more limited user base?

MS has to drop the paywall if they want people like my mom to invest in their ecosystem. Most Silver users probably don't game much on their 360, so having them online so MS can show them ads isn't going to help sell the Durango or get MS converts to the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[bro1]

2 years from now when E3 roles around, the vast majority of the people saying that they are not going to buy these consoles are going to be arguing over what is better, Halo 5 or Uncharted 4. You are not going to sit out 10 years of gaming because of second hand games or always on consoles. You are going to buy a console and change your habits.

The industry is changing and we all need to adapt. On the PC, many games need an always on connection and when it comes to your mobile gaming, you can't get your apps without going online. As for the people saying that the if the internet goes down, you can't play your game is bad. Guess what? When my cable goes down, I can't watch TV. Not much difference. If I want to watch my blu rays and the power goes out, I can't watch them either.

As for the used games argument it may keep some people out from buying hardware but in the long run they will come around when the system price drops. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if MS allows you to buy used media but you have to pay a fee to activate the game when you install it like an online pass. For them it's a win win as they don't have to pay for the physical media charge to get a second customer.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Can't meaning can't physically establish the connection (i.e. console in attic somewhere), don't have the hardware, or don't know how? And from your original question, which do you think is more easily correctable (normative question, I know)?

All of the 360's sold prior to June 2010 didn't come with Wifi. Without an easy way to connect the console(unless you spent a couple of games worth of money buying the adapter), the more casual, buys one or two games a year consumer, just doesn't bother with getting it hooked up online. Without knowing the connection rate for the 360s consoles, hard to say how much of their base they would actually lose.

 

[Duxxy3]

Perhaps the ones who are not connected actually don't buy any games, so they don't matter.

Has anyone ever met one of these disconnected Xbox users?

Friend of mine didn't have internet for 3 years but still bought new 360 games.

 

[clav]

Friend of mine didn't have internet for 3 years

How is that even possible?

 

[Plinko]

Perhaps the ones who are not connected actually don't buy any games, so they don't matter.

Has anyone ever met one of these disconnected Xbox users?

Literally hundreds. As I said in another thread, I taught school in rural areas where thousands had no high-speed access. Hundreds of those students had 360/PS3.

 

[bro1]

I have (multiple, lol) Live accounts, but I only plug my 360 in to run stuff from XBLIG. I think it's a very depressing commentary on the quality of a console's games if you can't imagine its users buying it just for them, and we're still nowhere near MP as main mode in everything.

I despise online games yet I have my xbox online for a variety of different reasons. I only play single player games but I am exposed to the ads everytime I turn it on.

I mean every person commenting on this thread is online right now. The vast majority of people that are going to buy more than 3 games for their consoles are going to be online. How many of those 25 million consoles not connected have more than 3 games?

MS may be going to the idea that it is better to have high value customers than low value customers. They also know people are getting used to paying for shit they haven't in the past. My iphone data plan costs me $30 a month and I work from home and rarely leave. I pay $8 a month for Netflix and watch it maybe twice a month. People pay for shit all the time and don't even notice.

 

[Duxxy3]

How is that even possible?

If all you're interested in is single player games, why would it be impossible?

This may be shocking to people but there are others out there that buy call of duty, halo, diablo, starcraft and many other games JUST for the single player.

edit: it's possible because he didn't want to pay for internet, phone or tv

 

[Baby Milo]

This isn't that new. Office 365. I think it's not too bad a model depending on the type of user you are.

i've been using the same OSX apps for years now so this is news to me

 

[bro1]

Friend of mine didn't have internet for 3 years but still bought new 360 games.

I bet MS is going to make more money on ad revenue than they are on games next gen. And the publishers are going to make more money on microtransactions and not having to worry about used games with this model.

MS is moving towards Google (ad revenue) and Apple (high value customers) and getting away from the old way of doing business.

 

[Duxxy3]

I bet MS is going to make more money on ad revenue than they are on games next gen. And the publishers are going to make more money on microtransactions and not having to worry about used games with this model.

MS is moving towards Google (ad revenue) and Apple (high value customers) and getting away from the old way of doing business.

And that's up to them.

There is no doubt they will lose consumers though. The ones they lose will stay put or gravitate towards something else.

 

[Razdek]

MS is always trying to be imitate other companies instead of carving their own path. In the leaked PowerPoint slides they want to target 100 million in sales so why would they off the bat eliminate a segment if the market to sell to? Sounds really stupid to do but they've been making lots of stupid mistakes lately so it's probably accurate.

 

[meta4]

I bet MS is going to make more money on ad revenue than they are on games next gen. And the publishers are going to make more money on microtransactions and not having to worry about used games with this model.

MS is moving towards Google (ad revenue) and Apple (high value customers) and getting away from the old way of doing business.

Based on these ads Sony really seems to be projecting itself in the opposite direction from what we have heard of MS so far for some reason.

And the ads keep on coming:

PS4: For adults only:

PS4: Not a phone:

They're not all snarky though:

I wonder if they think it is better not to project PS4 as the high end multimedia all in one box unlike MS who is most likely to project 720 in that manner once it gets announced.I dont know if these ads indicate a broader strategy of diffrentiating from MS but I not too sure it will work though and it may bite them in the ass for not following MS. I still think it is not possible for Sony to allow used games while MS does not.

 

[bro1]

And that's up to them.

There is no doubt they will lose consumers though. The ones they lose will stay put or gravitate towards something else.

That's my point though, they are going to lose customers they don't want. This isn't like a gym membership where they want you to sign up and never return. They need their customers plugged into their ecosystem, exposed to ads, and consuming media.

If you are just buying second hand games and not doing microtransactions then they don't want you.

 

[bobbytkc]

I still think it is not possible for Sony to allow used games while MS does not.

Why? The Wii U already allows for used games.

 

[bro1]

Based on these ads Sony really seems to be projecting itself in the opposite direction from what we have heard of MS so far for some reason.




I wonder if they think it is better not to project PS4 as the high end multimedia all in one box unlike MS who is most likely to project 720 in that manner once it gets announced.I dont know if these ads indicate a broader strategy of diffrentiating from MS but I not too sure it will work though and it may bite them in the ass for not following MS. I still think it is not possible for Sony to allow used games while MS does not.

Playstation doesn't have an ecosystem to worry about. Sony has their TVs, movies, and games but very few services that I am aware of. They need to focus on being a gaming system.

MS on the other hand has your OS, your phone, Surface, and the Xbox. This could be how they go to battle with Apple.

 

[Mandoric]

I despise online games yet I have my xbox online for a variety of different reasons. I only play single player games but I am exposed to the ads everytime I turn it on.

I mean every person commenting on this thread is online right now. The vast majority of people that are going to buy more than 3 games for their consoles are going to be online. How many of those 25 million consoles not connected have more than 3 games?

MS may be going to the idea that it is better to have high value customers than low value customers. They also know people are getting used to paying for shit they haven't in the past. My iphone data plan costs me $30 a month and I work from home and rarely leave. I pay $8 a month for Netflix and watch it maybe twice a month. People pay for shit all the time and don't even notice.

There's a difference between being online on a particular device specifically to use the internet and being online on all devices at all times. Especially when most 360s shipped without WiFi.

Have a HTPC/PS3/360 combo but don't have a hub behind your TV? It doesn't get connected unless you make a conscious effort. Kids take it up to their room when you're watching a movie? Ditto, if they even have an ethernet drop. Going to one of the many, many colleges that limit their dorm network ports to one device at a time? Gotta pick between it and Facebook, and that's if they don't block Live. It's only a few extra seconds of effort, but if a few extra seconds of effort were no big deal then we wouldn't have drive-thru.

And while it's definitely best to have high-value customers, as long as you're not losing money serving them low-value customers beat no customers. Especially in the console business, where you have to keep major third-parties happy and Activision lives off the dude who buys nothing but every other CoD.

 

[Razdek]

That's my point though, they are going to lose customers they don't want. This isn't like a gym membership where they want you to sign up and never return. They need their customers plugged into their ecosystem, exposed to ads, and consuming media.

If you are just buying second hand games and not doing microtransactions then they don't want you.

If that's their attitude then they deserve to fail. A company should be aiming to get as many customers as possible and those that don't go online still have the potential to buy games so they still get money from them. Trying to force something that customers don't want is going to cost them if they go through with it.

 

[Toski]

That's my point though, they are going to lose customers they don't want. This isn't like a gym membership where they want you to sign up and never return. They need their customers plugged into their ecosystem, exposed to ads, and consuming media.

If you are just buying second hand games and not doing microtransactions then they don't want you.

This plan gives MS steady revenue, but I question how much profit (and growth) it brings in. For MS to get ad money, they will need a lot of consoles sold. If Durango only sells 25-35 million in the first five years, are they happy with that? If Sony does 75-100 million in the same time frame without the draconian policies, is MS happy playing second fiddle with their current subscriber base?

 

[bro1]

If that's their attitude then they deserve to fail. A company should be aiming to get as many customers as possible and those that don't go online still have the potential to buy games so they still get money from them. Trying to force something that customers don't want is going to cost them if they go through with it.

Tell that to Apple. Apple wants as many customers as they can get but they sell their hardware at a premium. Plenty of things you buy come with things you don't want or never use but you still pay for those features.