Support NeoGAF

[Toppot]

Why can that not be done now if you are online? Your friendslist already tells you what games they are playing, and Vita is able to search the local area for players that have Vita's and tells you what they have been playing. Neither require always online.

If you are not online then you are not getting realtime local data, if you are playing a game where you say have to track friends or random psn users as they travel or go on holiday, as part of a game, the best you will be able to do is simulation. It would vary by game. I'll leave coming up with lots uses of an always online required connection up the professionals (Game designers).

So security for games is worth more than freedom for consumers to play offline? Sony were able to combat piracy to an extent this gen with the PS3 without needing to resort to crazy Always Online, need to report back to the mothership systems.

Where did I say that required always online is worth cutting off consumers right to play a game offline? I have constantly said how I don't agree with a forced required online (I won't be getting the nextbox) I'm simply pointing out advantages, and no not all advantages are for the consumer, and changes usually always have advantages and disadvantages in some way or another.

Sony were able to stop piracy because they could close the loophole, the PS3 is a very complicated system, tomorrow it could be hacked in such a way so that they could never block it (Look at the PSP scene).

How?

I made a mistake in my logic on this point, I retract it and apologise.

How about the ability to play games when the servers are down and not need to give out compensation at all.

People were able to play most games offline when PSN went down, people still wanted compensation and were still given it. When the loss is higher then the compensation should be as well.


People have to realise that negatives or disadvantages also usually have advantages or positives to, in some small way or not, if you look for them.

I shall say this again as you still seem to think I am some defender of Microsoft. I do not agree with having an always online required console, but to say there are no advantages for the consumer (or anyone else for that matter) is disingenuous. Consumer wise I would say negatives out way the positives, but that doesn't mean the positives aren't there.

Where is the advantage? I'll use the example I already mentioned in the last post.

If I leave my PC on Steam will update all my games without me needing an Always Online system.

If my console is always online, in low or high power state, then I don't need to worry about leaving it on, like i would a computer, just in case there is an update. But as it is, your computer must be online all the time (Always online) for it to be able to download the updates at any time.

 

[mclem]

There is no pro-consumer reason. If Microsoft is doing it, it's either for DRM reasons or to guarantee an ad feed to all Xbox owners.

The OP didn't specify a pro-consumer advantage.

As for whether it benefits publishers... I have no idea.

You even *said* DRM reasons at the top of the post! That's a publisher benefit. I really don't see all this going on just for an ad feed. They already have ads on the dash now, and I don't really see people pulling the connection just to avoid seeing them.

I do not believe that there is any way Microsoft would be doing this unless it gives them leverage with third parties.

Developers and gamers seem really pleased with Sony right now, so I think it's going to take something pretty huge for publishers to ditch the PS4 entirely and give Durango exclusive support.

Sony hasn't presented a compelling argument to me as to how devs are going to make a profit on all this fancy stuff. Of course, Microsoft hasn't presented an argument to me on anything regarding Durango, so it's hard to read much, but you can make the nicest hardware on the planet, and if it doesn't turn a decent profit for third parties, they're not going to touch it.

As I alluded to in my very first post on this subject: It has the potential to enable higher budgets for development. Whether that's a strict advantage depends on your personal preferences, but there's certainly a sector of consumers who would regard it as advantageous.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Is it possible that Microsoft could be planning to eventually use their deep neural network tech to control in-game AI? If you go to your developers and assure them that every single one of your customers is connected to their data centers when playing games then those developers have the confidence to build their in-game AI around a reliance on Microsoft's data centers.

Theoretically there are some pretty amazing and dramatic things developers could do to improve their games when they have the assurance that every single person who buys their game will be connected to incredibly powerful data centers.

 

[rohlfinator]

Supposedly the system requires Kinect microphone and camera to be connected for the system to function (according to rumors) in order to control every aspect of the console from games to TV and video to Internet searches to potentially the lights in your home. The systems ability to accurately understand your voice and gestures in every single element of the system are directly connected to their data centers making this data crunching and matching possible. If you are disconnected from their data centers then nothing would work well. Voice recognition will be much slower and less accurate, gesture and image recognition would be much slower and less accurate in every single game and every single function of the machine.

Wouldn't surprise me I guess, but if the system requires Kinect to the point where it can't even fall back to a controller... I'm fully expecting Shitstorm Part II when that news hits GAF.

You even *said* DRM reasons at the top of the post! That's a publisher benefit. I really don't see all this going on just for an ad feed. They already have ads on the dash now, and I don't really see people pulling the connection just to avoid seeing them.

DRM is only a benefit if it doesn't encourage consumers to leave the platform en masse.

Sony hasn't presented a compelling argument to me as to how devs are going to make a profit on all this fancy stuff. Of course, Microsoft hasn't presented an argument to me on anything regarding Durango, so it's hard to read much, but you can make the nicest hardware on the planet, and if it doesn't make money for third parties, they're not going to touch it.

Yeah, it's hard to say without knowing more details about Durango. It's easy to assume the worst right now, but who knows if that'll change.

But publishers made plenty of games (and some of them even made money!) for the current gen consoles even without ridiculous DRM, so I think they'll be able to find a way for it to work on PS4. If the architectures are as similar as everyone assumes, the cost of porting should be lower than ever, meaning that PS4 will have to be either an unprecedented bomba or a piracy haven for a port to not be financially viable. It's hard to imagine either of those happening.

 

[mclem]

Is it possible that Microsoft could be planning to eventually use their deep neural network tech to control in-game AI? If you go to your developers and assure them that every single one of your customers is connected to their data centers when playing games then those developers have the confidence to build their in-game AI around a reliance on Microsoft's data centers.

Theoretically there are some pretty amazing and dramatic things developers could do to improve their games when they have the assurance that every single person who buys their game will be connected to incredibly powerful data centers.

Surely latency would have too large an impact for that to be particularly beneficial?

 

[mavs]

Is it possible that Microsoft could be planning to eventually use their deep neural network tech to control in-game AI? If you go to your developers and assure them that every single one of your customers is connected to their data centers when playing games then those developers have the confidence to build their in-game AI around a reliance on Microsoft's data centers.

Theoretically there are some pretty amazing and dramatic things developers could do to improve their games when they have the assurance that every single person who buys their game will be connected to incredibly powerful data centers.

8ms packet latency = 1 frame latency round trip. With that absurdly low latency your cloud AI processing will be 1 frame behind the actual game. What latency do you think would be required to make cloud processing actually usable?

You may as well make your game OnLive only.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Surely latency would have too large an impact for that to be particularly beneficial?

Well that would depend on the game type wouldn't it or the kind of intelligence you were enhancing. If you're playing chess for example certainly latency is a non-issue. If you're playing street fighter it might or might not be an issue. However even something like Street Fighter the computer could learn your behaviors over time and adjust it's tactics after multiple gameplay sessions. The system in aggregate could also learn what moves most players are spamming and counterbalance the AI to prevent you from successfully using those tactics.

 

[zerokoolpsx]

You answered your own post OP.

 

[rohlfinator]

Well that would depend on the game type wouldn't it or the kind of intelligence you were enhancing. If you're playing chess for example certainly latency is a non-issue. If you're playing street fighter it might or might not be an issue. However the computer could learn your behavior over time and adjust it's tactics after multiple gameplay sessions.

How many games/genres are there where that kind of huge server backend would make sense? I'd love to see AI improvements, but I don't think that's a very big selling point for the mass market. Certainly not enough to justify a huge OnLive-style cloud to support it.

 

[mclem]

DRM is only a benefit if it doesn't encourage consumers to leave the platform en masse.

It... generally hasn't in the past. Perhaps things will be different this time round, but it seems that the masses in general tolerate DRM.

But publishers made plenty of games (and some of them even made money!) for the current gen consoles even without ridiculous DRM, so I think they'll be able to find a way for it to work on PS4.

I am very, very sceptical of that. At least in terms of reliable profits; there's bound to be a few breakout hits.

If the architectures are as similar as everyone assumes, the cost of porting should be lower than ever, meaning that PS4 will have to be either an unprecedented bomba or a piracy haven for a port to not be financially viable. It's hard to imagine either of those happening.

Well, yes, the (theoretical) budgetary increases have the potential to benefit *both* platforms, with the Xbox users effectively subsidising the PS4 users a little. I think that might be countered by Microsoft using the always-online features aggressively as a bargaining chip (give us three month's exclusivity and we'll promote the game significantly in the shop to EVERY SINGLE USER)

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

How many games/genres are there where that kind of huge server backend would make sense? I'd love to see AI improvements, but I don't think that's a very big selling point for the mass market. Certainly not enough to justify a huge OnLive-style cloud to support it.

Microsoft has already built and invested in these data centers and is always upgrading and improving them. The work and research has already been done. The question now is what is going to take advantage of it. We know of voice for a fact as they've already confirmed it here. Gesture/image recognition seems logical as it would receive similar benefits to voice recognition. I'm just speculating here that in-game AI is also a potential use of this deep neural network they keep bragging about.

It might not be a big selling point upfront to consumers, but to developers it is probably a dream come true. Imagine going to a company like Capcom and saying we're going to use these data centers we spent billions on to make your Street Fighter AI infinitely adaptable and more addictive to play against than ever before in history. Is Capcom going to say, no thanks we'd rather just make our game for the dumb 8-core processor in the machine that is limited to processing the database collected from the 1 person playing the game on that console?


Bethesda could make a single player game that makes use of massive worldwide data collection and on the fly number crunching. Is Bethesda going to turn down the ability to create a world full of NPC's that can learn on the fly from millions of play sessions around the globe and adjust in-game behavior to make the experience more realistic and engaging for players? The idea that only multiplayer games can benefit from the expectation of Internet connectivity is false.

 

[rac]

Is Capcom going to say, no thanks we'd rather just make our game for the dumb 8-core processor in the machine that is limited to processing the database collected from the 1 person playing the game on that console? Even if Bethesda isn't making an MMO, they're making a single player game that makes use of massive worldwide data collection and on the fly number crunching.

Is Bethesda going to turn down the ability to create a world full of NPC's that can learn on the fly from millions of play sessions around the globe and adjust in-game behavior to make the experience more realistic and engaging for players? The idea that only multiplayer games can benefit from the expectation of Internet connectivity is false.

Yeah, if they want to make multiplatform games.

 

[rdaneel72]

For publishers:

DRM
DLC
Targeted advertising
Real-time analytics
Discouraging piracy
Data Mining



For consumers:

...?

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Yeah, if they want to make multiplatform games.

How is this any different than expecting Capcom to build in SmartGlass and Kinect support into every game they make?

I don't see how this would necessarily keep them from being able to make multiplatform games. All of the art assets and most of the code is reusable, but the onus would be on Microsoft to create a development platform that allowed them to plug into their API's easily (something which Microsoft is pretty good at).

For publishers:

DRM
DLC
Targeted advertising
Real-time analytics
Discouraging piracy
Data Mining

For consumers:

...?

Real-time analysis and data mining are of no value to consumers? Then why do so many people use Google services?

 

[KidBeta]

How is this any different than expecting Capcom to build in SmartGlass and Kinect support into every game they make?

I don't see how this would necessarily keep them from being able to make multiplatform games. All of the art assets and most of the code is reusable, but the onus would be on Microsoft to create a development platform that allowed them to plug into their API's easily (something which Microsoft is pretty good at).

Nothing stopping them doing the same thing on a console that doesn't brick itself when the internet goes out. You can do anything on a console with non persistent online required as can on a console that requires a persistent online connection

The only difference is that it may not work for every person, and you would have to have a disclaimer saying that some aspect of the game may not work without a internet connection.

Then again that is far better then the console just dying without a net connection.

 

[BigDug13]

Microsoft has already built and invested in these data centers and is always upgrading and improving them. The work and research has already been done. The question now is what is going to take advantage of it. We know of voice for a fact as they've already confirmed it here. Gesture/image recognition seems logical as it would receive similar benefits to voice recognition. I'm just speculating here that in-game AI is also a potential use of this deep neural network they keep bragging about.

It might not be a big selling point upfront to consumers, but to developers it is probably a dream come true. Imagine going to a company like Capcom and saying we're going to use these data centers we spent billions on to make your Street Fighter AI infinitely adaptable and more addictive to play against than ever before in history. Is Capcom going to say, no thanks we'd rather just make our game for the dumb 8-core processor in the machine that is limited to processing the database collected from the 1 person playing the game on that console?


Bethesda could make a single player game that makes use of massive worldwide data collection and on the fly number crunching. Is Bethesda going to turn down the ability to create a world full of NPC's that can learn on the fly from millions of play sessions around the globe and adjust in-game behavior to make the experience more realistic and engaging for players? The idea that only multiplayer games can benefit from the expectation of Internet connectivity is false.

Bethesda isn't going to do that man, they've been dumbing down the ES series for years to appeal to the mass market. You don't even get a real quest journal anymore, just a marker on a map to follow for every single quest.

 

[rohlfinator]

It... generally hasn't in the past. Perhaps things will be different this time round, but it seems that the masses in general tolerate DRM.

This seems like a very different situation to me. Pissing off the early adopter crowd could give the PS4 a big early momentum boost. Killing used game sales would do the same.

I agree that the masses will tolerate DRM, but will they go for the Xbox if their core gamer friends all picked the PS4?

I am very, very sceptical of that. At least in terms of reliable profits; there's bound to be a few breakout hits.

Personally I think that counting on used game buyers and pirates to tip an over-budget AAA game into profitability is extremely wishful thinking on Microsoft's part (assuming all this is true).

 

[Dibbz]

You answered your own post OP.

I know but I was making a point. With all the news of Always Online going around I wanted to show that there are almost zero benifits for a consumer.

 

[MightyKAC]

The only honest advantage I could think of for "always online" would be that I would drive up the incentive for various ISP's and other Telco's in area's where internet infrastructure is lacking or inconsistent to step up their respective games to facilitate the emerging need for a large customer base (i.e gamers) to have a fast and rock solid connection.

But honestly, that's all I could come up with and even that's pretty damned flimsy at best.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Nothing stopping them doing the same thing on a console that doesn't brick itself when the internet goes out. You can do anything on a console with non persistent online required as can on a console that requires a persistent online connection

The only difference is that it may not work for every person, and you would have to have a disclaimer saying that some aspect of the game may not work without a internet connection.

Then again that is far better then the console just dying without a net connection.

The difference is that developers won't build the games or take the risk if they aren't assured that consumers have access to it. It's the problem of every console add-on in video game history. If you tell your developers every single one of the people that buy this console will have access to this capability then developers have the confidence to build their game around the capability. If the developer can't rely on Microsoft's data centers being connected then they have to program two versions of the game for the Microsoft system. One version makes use of just the dumb local machine and the other version of code makes use of the data center and deep neural network. With budget constraints developers aren't going to do this, they're only going to create the game that can be played on every single Xbox. They are forced to code for offline use instead of spending all/any of their resources on a connected version of the game.

With the optional system you want maybe you'll get Lionhead using the technology as a showpiece, but you won't be able to convince Bioware, Bethesda, Rockstar, etc. And even in that case Lionhead still has to waste resources building two versions of their game, extending development time and costing Microsoft Studios a lot more money.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I fully support a society where people are capable of having sex with men.

I would be aghast at a society where having sex with men is compulsory.

 

[Dibbz]

The difference is that developers won't build the games or take the risk if they aren't assured that consumers have access to it. It's the problem of every console add-on in video game history. If you tell your developers every single one of the people that buy this console will have access to this capability then developers have the confidence to build their game around the capability. If the developer can't rely on Microsoft's data centers being connected then they have to program two versions of the game for the Microsoft system. One version makes use of just the dumb local machine and the other version of code makes use of the data center and deep neural network.

Online is not an addon. It comes with the console. The idea developers won't risk implementing online mechanics because online isn't guaranteed from every user is dumb. Maybe in 2001 yeah you could understand, but when you have CoD, Halo etc selling 5+ million you can be pretty sure people are connected.

 

[Can Crusher]

Apparently it might allow you to ship underpowered hardware and use Cloud processing to make up for it?

I don't know, but that's the end goal I guess.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Online is not an addon. It comes with the console. The idea developers won't risk implementing online mechanics because online isn't guaranteed from every user is dumb. Maybe in 2001 yeah you could understand, but when you have CoD, Halo etc selling 5+ million you can be pretty sure people are connected.

You're not getting it.

Think of it this way: Almost every single online FPS game you buy for a console today is essentially two games. You have the multiplayer game which is completely different code than the offline campaign game.

The reason why developers make games like this as opposed to making tons of Counter Strike type of games or Bioshock is because they have to account for both consumers who do not connect their consoles to the Internet and consumers who spend most of their time online. It's the reason why multiplayer gets shoehorned into games like Tomb Raider. Developers are stuck building two games and selling them as one package.

The fact that online capability is built into every console doesn't change the reality that a significant percentage of consumers are still not connecting. Developers still have to build games for offline consoles because no platform has ever made online connectivity a requirement of users.

If developers can't count on everyone with the console being able to use the same network-generated AI then they have to essentially build two different versions of the campaign with two different sets of AI. So now developers are essentially building 3 games instead of 2.

1.) The online multiplayer game
2.) The online campaign with deep neural network technology, kinect voice/gesture enhancements.
3.) The offline campaign with local AI calculations, no kinect voice/gesture enhancements.

That would blow most budgets apart so most developers will just skip making game #2 and only build 1 & 3. All the money and investments Microsoft has made in their data centers are largely wasted and they lose their single biggest technical advantage against their competitors.

 

[Dreamgazer]

You're not getting it.

Think of it this way: Almost every single online FPS game you buy for a console today is essentially two games. You have the multiplayer game which is completely different code than the offline campaign game.

The reason why developers make games like this as opposed to making tons of Counter Strike type of games is because they have to account for consumers who do not connect their consoles to the Internet.

The fact that online capability is built into every console doesn't change this reality that a significant percentage of consumers are still not connecting. Developers still have to build their games for offline consoles because no platform has ever made online connectivity a requirement of all consoles they sell.

If developers can't count on everyone with the console being able to use the same network-generated AI then they have to essentially build two different versions of the campaign with two different sets of AI. So now developers are essentially building 3 games instead of 2.

1.) The online multiplayer game
2.) The online campaign with deep neural network technology, kinect voice/gesture enhancements.
3.) The offline campaign with local AI calculations, no kinect voice/gesture enhancements.

That would blow most budgets apart so most developers will just skip making game #2 and only build 1 & 3. All the money and investments Microsoft has made in their data centers are largely wasted and they lose their single biggest technical advantage against their competitors.

Why can't they just say "sorry, no offline components" and just do 1 &2 regardless?

They can easily do this on PC if they want to too.

 

[H_Prestige]

You're not getting it.

Think of it this way: Almost every single online FPS game you buy for a console today is essentially two games. You have the multiplayer game which is completely different code than the offline campaign game.

The reason why developers make games like this as opposed to making tons of Counter Strike type of games or Bioshock is because they have to account for both consumers who do not connect their consoles to the Internet and consumers who spend most of their time online. It's the reason why multiplayer gets shoehorned into games like Tomb Raider. Developers are stuck building two games and selling them as one package.

The fact that online capability is built into every console doesn't change the reality that a significant percentage of consumers are still not connecting. Developers still have to build games for offline consoles because no platform has ever made online connectivity a requirement of users.

If developers can't count on everyone with the console being able to use the same network-generated AI then they have to essentially build two different versions of the campaign with two different sets of AI. So now developers are essentially building 3 games instead of 2.

1.) The online multiplayer game
2.) The online campaign with deep neural network technology, kinect voice/gesture enhancements.
3.) The offline campaign with local AI calculations, no kinect voice/gesture enhancements.

That would blow most budgets apart so most developers will just skip making game #2 and only build 1 & 3. All the money and investments Microsoft has made in their data centers are largely wasted and they lose their single biggest technical advantage against their competitors.

Always online games don't require always online consoles.

 

[NullPointer]

You're not getting it.

Think of it this way: Almost every single online FPS game you buy for a console today is essentially two games. You have the multiplayer game which is completely different code than the offline campaign game.

The reason why developers make games like this as opposed to making tons of Counter Strike type of games or Bioshocks is because they have to account for consumers who do not connect their consoles to the Internet.

And what you're not getting is that not everybody wants every game to be a multiplayer, connected experience.

I don't want multiplayer in my Skyrim or Bioshock or Tomb Raider or Spec Ops or Mark of the Ninja or a host of other games I love to play. I don't want it - I don't need it - its extraneous - its *not* a benefit - and in some cases this single-minded desire to shoehorn in a multiplayer mode saps the resources and identity from what could have been a great single player experience.

The fact that some of my favorite games may have well crafted multiplayer modes is a plus, if and when I want to dip my feet into them. Just like it can be nice to find a decent campaign in a game you bought for multiplayer.

Options are good. Being funneled through your strict online-only-tunnel vision isn't a good thing.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Why can't they just say "sorry, no offline components" and just do 1 &2 regardless?

They can easily do this on PC if they want to too.

The publisher wants the developer to create a game that they can sell to 100% of the console owners.

The publisher looks at the stats and sees only 40-50% of console owners are connecting their machine to the internet and say to the developer no way are you creating a game that is playable by so few. This is why there are so few online-only games on consoles.


Bungie's Destiny is probably trying to change the status quo on consoles. In the way that World of Warcraft paved the way for PC developers to build online-only games. Bungie is probably hoping that Destiny can become the first monster hit on consoles that proves online-only games can dominate the sales charts. And perhaps they came to that decision to build the game that way after discussions with Microsoft about how they were going to require online connectivity from every consumer or vice versa after Microsoft heard what Bungie wanted to accomplish. Just my speculation, but the companies are close and have known each other's plans for a long time.

And what you're not getting is that not everybody wants every game to be a multiplayer, connected experience.

I don't want multiplayer in my Skyrim or Bioshock or Tomb Raider or Spec Ops or Mark of the Ninja or a host of other games I love to play. I don't want it - I don't need it - its extraneous - its *not* a benefit - and in some cases this single-minded desire to shoehorn in a multiplayer mode saps the resources and identity from what could have been a great single player experience.

The fact that some of my favorite games may have well crafted multiplayer modes is a plus, if and when I want to dip my feet into them. Just like it can be nice to find a decent campaign in a game you bought for multiplayer.

Options are good. Being funneled through your strict online-only-tunnel vision isn't a good thing.

You're not following the conversation. I'm talking about using the online connection not for multiplayer at all, but enhancing the AI in the single player game. Making the single player experience better by using Microsoft data centers to super charge and adjust the gameplay experience for single player, enhancing Kinect speed and accuracy for single player.

We are not talking about building only multiplayer games for the system. That's not going to happen.

Online connectivity /= multiplayer

 

[Eusis]

Always online games don't require always online consoles.

People are ignoring this to the point where I want to hurl insults their way. You can still make games around online play and not demand the entire fucking system stay online. You can't even pull updates on me, my Nexus 7 auto updates everything and it'll work just fine if there's no internet connection there.

 

[rac]

The publisher wants the developer to create a game that they can sell to 100% of the console owners.

The publisher looks at the stats and sees only 40-50% of console owners are connecting their machine to the internet and say to the developer no way are you creating a game that is playable by so few.

40-50% of all the people who own consoles is a lot of people. Do you honestly believe a publisher would be unhappy with that amount?

 

[NullPointer]

You're not following the conversation. I'm talking about using the connection not for multiplayer at all, but enhancing the AI in the single player game. Making the single player experience better by using Microsoft data centers to super charge and adjust the gameplay experience for single player, enhancing Kinect speed and accuracy for single player.

Oh God, you're right that I was on a different track, but you do seem to keep to this point that connected games are inherently better than what you call "anti-social" games.

Honestly I think your cloud AI idea is almost worse. Sounds interesting for certain games if everybody had solid and completely stable low latency internet access - but thats far from the world we actually live in. You'd introduce lag into even the most basic of games, even when played alone.

Is AI such an insurmountable problem even with next gen console specs? I always thought the problem wasn't the tech so much as that its not as sexy to showcase your AI as compared to your graphics.

Edit: One question - since all you need is certainty that your entire audience is online to use some of these advanced concepts you mention, are you seeing this happen in other online-only games? If so, care to share some?

 

[Eusis]

40-50% of all the people who own consoles is a lot of people. Do you honestly believe a publisher would be unhappy with that amount?

Not only that, but you're only ever going to sell to maybe a fourth of a popular console's user base at best, more likely a tenth. If >50% are online and you want to make an always online game you can probably safely do this, at best requiring online here is just a way to make shareholders not get pissy about half the market being cut off. Though if they require Live separately from using the system this happens ANYWAY. And any positive benefits are likely locked away too, making it a pointless exercise.

 

[ElectricBanquet]

Since there won't be a used game market, you'll never again have to worry about being tempted to sell your old games. Then you'll have a great collection of fun games to play forever and ever.*


* "forever and ever" is hereto defined as "until the servers are shut down".

 

[leadbelly]

Well... ignored. I guess that's it.

 

[Eusis]

Since there won't be a used game market, you'll never again have to worry about being tempted to sell your old games. Then you'll have a great collection of fun games to play forever and ever.*


* "forever and ever" is hereto defined as "until the servers are shut down".

This is also why it's better on a game-by-game basis. Losing any games due to server shutdowns is a shame, but it's worse if an entire console is taken down.

 

[KidBeta]

The publisher wants the developer to create a game that they can sell to 100% of the console owners.

The publisher looks at the stats and sees only 40-50% of console owners are connecting their machine to the internet and say to the developer no way are you creating a game that is playable by so few. This is why there are so few online-only games on consoles.

A publisher wants a developer to sell a game they can make money off, they don't care if it reaches 1% of the market, or 100%, they care about money.

If less then half the current market is online

then less then half the current market can even use the 720

Would you rather see your game sell 8 million copies, 4 million of which use all of the online features and 4 million don't

or 4 million copies where everyone uses all the online features.

 

[Monocle]

The only upsides to an always online console that can think of at the moment are automatically downloading content and installing updates so you never have to stare at a status screen again. These are minor advantage at best, and they could be accomplished in a different way. The console could simply download and install in the background whenever it has online access. You'd get the same seamless experience without the inconvenience of having to keep your machine connected at all times.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

Is AI such an insurmountable problem even with next gen console specs? I always thought the problem wasn't the tech so much as that its not as sexy to showcase your AI as compared to your graphics.

Edit: One question - since all you need is certainty that your entire audience is online to use some of these advanced concepts you mention, are you seeing this happen in other online-only games? If so, care to share some?

To be honest I'm not sure that game companies are building the data centers that Microsoft Research has been building to process data. I'm sure companies like Google and maybe Amazon have somewhat similar technology, but is EA and Blizzard building out these expensive neural networks? I'm skeptical of that.

I'm also not the best person to ask about PC game development. I've heard various ideas over the years of how games like Spore or Left 4 Dead would integrate network data into the single player experience, but these are primitive implementations of the ideas I'm talking about.

Not only that, but you're only ever going to sell to maybe a fourth of a popular console's user base at best, more likely a tenth. If >50% are online and you want to make an always online game you can probably safely do this, at best requiring online here is just a way to make shareholders not get pissy about half the market being cut off. Though if they require Live separately from using the system this happens ANYWAY. And any positive benefits are likely locked away too, making it a pointless exercise.

Then why are there so few online-only console games and even fewer (any?) online-only console games that are ever topping the sales charts?

Why develop a game that has to have a disclaimer at the top of it (like Kinect games today) that says WARNING: this game requires.... when you can sell a game without a disclaimer that everybody can potentially buy?

Well... ignored. I guess that's it.

How is your question being ignored? It's been said over and over again that publishers do not like to make games that only some of the console owners can buy. They like making games that everyone with the console can buy and enjoy.

Sure every publisher can build a Final Fantasy XI on consoles, but most companies would rather build a Skyrim and make lots of money on consoles.

If less then half the current market is online

then less then half the current market can even use the 720.

Great point. Which is why I've been drawing the comparison to the broadband decision for Xbox 1. Microsoft probably believes that if they can demonstrate to consumers how much better the capabilities and gameplay experiences are from an always-on game console then they will convince a large portion of that offline audience to start connecting their consoles to the Internet.

It's a financial gamble as it was with the original Xbox to draw a line in the sand. Pushing multiplayer consumers into broadband was controversial. Pushing everyone into online entertainment is even more controversial. If they are willing to take that risk and absorb the criticism again they must be confident that the experience always-on delivers will be able to convince people they can't go back to the old system of offline consoles. The experience has to be exponentially better to change consumer behavior though.

 

[Kelegacy]

There are no real pros for consumers. It's purely a pro for publishers, no matter how they spin it otherwise.

And since I'm a consumer and not a developer/publisher, I vote for a system/game to never be always-online no matter what. I will always vote on the side of the consumer, and so should all consumers.

 

[KidBeta]

Great point. Which is why I've been drawing the comparison to the broadband decision for Xbox 1. Microsoft probably believes that if they can demonstrate to consumers how much better the capabilities and gameplay experiences are from an always-on game console then they will convince a large portion of that offline audience to start connecting their consoles to the Internet.

Thats going to be difficult when not all the people who aren't online even have internet.

There is nothing you can do which requires online for the _entire_ console _all_ the time that you cannot do with just having online when you want to use those features/to use those features

 

[rohlfinator]

Bungie's Destiny is probably trying to change the status quo on consoles. In the way that World of Warcraft paved the way for PC developers to build online-only games.

There were tons of online-only games on the PC prior to WoW. And there are already games that are essentially online-only on consoles now (hell, Shadowrun was multiplayer-only in 2007).

Great point. Which is why I've been drawing the comparison to the broadband decision for Xbox 1. Microsoft probably believes that if they can demonstrate to consumers how much better the capabilities and gameplay experiences are from an always-on game console then they will convince a large portion of that offline audience to start connecting their consoles to the Internet.

So you're suggesting that there's a significant untapped market of people who have Internet access and want to play multiplayer, but don't go online only because they aren't being forced to?

 

[Eusis]

Then why are there so few online-only console games and even fewer (any?) online-only console games that are ever topping the sales charts?

Why develop a game that has to have a disclaimer at the top of it (like Kinect games today) that says WARNING: this game requires.... when you can sell a game without a disclaimer that everybody can potentially buy?

It probably has to do with what I said: shareholders (and likely many execs) are lukewarm on the idea of a game that inherently slices out a huge chunk of the market, it's why many games are multiplatform and very few depend on optional accessories, even when many have that accessory. It would seem to me that in practice it's really just a security blanket: they KNOW everyone's online, so even if the same number of people could've gotten the game you don't have to worry about cutting out a significant chunk of the market. But again if a game depends on a Live subscription it may well be undesirable to pursue anyway.

Come to think of it, maybe that's actually a bigger part of it? Most people have their system online, but the number of Live subscribers is notably lower, and at least in the US/UK the Xbox 360 IS the most popular core console. If they just swallowed the bullet and opened up online gaming to everyone choosing to profit off of DLC instead you may well see the floodgates open without requiring an always online console.

Speaking of which: yes, we've had always online games on each of the three consoles this generation: MMOs. Final Fantasy XI on Xbox 360/PS2/PC, DC Online on PS3/PC, and Dragon Quest X on Wii/Wii U. And may well see Watch Dogs doing just that on 360/PS3. Though games like SimCity likely show why it may not have been done if not completely, absolutely essential.

 

[ihearthawthats]

well if you believe that online features can enhance a console, and you believe that having a standard could ease the development process, then it's not that far-fetched to believe there could be higher quality products and services at the expense of having to be online.

to be honest, i don't think this is an issue of better or not. i think it's an issue of people who play online vs people who play offline. i know there's a lot of people who play offline, but i'm not one of them. so this 'always-online future' doesn't bother me. i mean i've played many online-only games for well over a decade without much problem (on dial-up mind you), so i don't think i would have serious issues if every game became online only. and in reality its not even 'every' game because you still have wiiu, pc, handhelds, android/ios, etc.

 

[bhlaab]

Online/Not Online is a pretty huge dichotomy that is difficult to balance. Closing that gap is a pretty good idea... maybe 10 years from now.

 

[Penguins&PolarBears]

There were tons of online-only games on the PC prior to WoW. And there are already games that are essentially online-only on consoles now (hell, Shadowrun was multiplayer-only in 2007).

I wasn't suggesting that there were no online-only games before WoW or that there were no online-only games on consoles (I even mentioned FFXI). All I'm saying is that publishers saw the enormous success of WoW and it gave many of them the confidence to invest tons of money into making a game that was also online only. What I'm saying is that consoles haven't had a WoW and maybe Bungie wants to make the first console game that proves to other developers you can make a huge bet on online-only console games and be incredibly successful.

So you're suggesting that there's a significant untapped market of people who have Internet access and want to play multiplayer, but don't go online only because they aren't being forced to?

No I'm not saying they want multiplayer, I'm saying they haven't been marketed a convincing reason for them to connect their console to the Internet.

Nobody believes 40% of Xbox owners don't have Internet connections. Obviously the majority of these people simply see no point in connecting their game console to the Internet. Some of these people are in zero-connectivity locations, but not 40% of console owners.

If you're a consumer who is never going to pay for Xbox Gold, are you going to bother connecting your Xbox to your Wi-Fi? If you're a consumer who sees no appeal in multiplayer competition are you really going to be bothered? If you're technologically unsophisticated are you going to be troubled to setup a router and wi-fi connection and possibly in some cases have to go out and buy a wi-fi router?

There's a lot of people out there playing campaign centric games (Skyrim, GTA, Assassins) and local multiplayer games (Madden, FIFA, Dance Central) that see no point to bother putting their Xbox online. Microsoft at some point needs to explain to these type of gamers why connecting online is to their benefit and eventually take a hard stance on inducing them to change their behavior.

 

[Eusis]

Nobody believes 40% of Xbox owners don't have Internet connections. Obviously the majority of these people simply see no point in connecting their game console to the Internet. Some of these people are in zero-connectivity locations, but not 40% of console owners.

If you're a consumer who is never going to pay for Xbox Gold, are you going to bother connecting your Xbox to your Wi-Fi? If you're a consumer who sees no appeal in multiplayer competition are you really going to be bothered? If you're technologically unsophisticated are you going to be troubled to setup a router and wi-fi connection and possibly in some cases have to go out and buy a wi-fi router?

It's worth pointing out that the 360 ALSO didn't have wireless built into it until it was... what, 5 years old? I'd like to see the percentage of connected PS3 owners, a system which was almost the opposite (only a single launch model lacked wi-fi.)

 

[Risette]

Online/Not Online is a pretty huge dichotomy that is difficult to balance. Closing that gap is a pretty good idea... maybe 10 years from now.

Will powerful storms and strong winds go away in ten years?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

There's a lot of people out there playing campaign centric games (Skyrim, GTA, Assassins) and local multiplayer games (Madden, FIFA, Dance Central) that see no point to bother putting their Xbox online. Microsoft at some point needs to explain to these type of gamers why connecting online is to their benefit and eventually take a hard stance on inducing them to change their behavior.

No, because a fucking corporation has no business doing fucking social engineering.

What the actual fuck?

Here's why Steam - as a form of DRM, which most people don't like - became a thing that most people like.
It offered lots of additional functionality for free. It made being online and using steam a huge benefit. It offered a carrot. And if you still didn't want to be online? Or your internet goes down? That's fine. You're a customer. You choose to do business with them. You're not beholden to them. They aren't entitled to your money because fuck you.

If a corporation decides they can't be bothered with offering incentives (carrots) and they just want to go straight to the stick, well, defend that all you want, but that's a corporation that has no place doing business.

 

[Ushae]

Pirates are the primary reason we're all in this damn mess to begin with. Piracy chokes sales and is potentially a cause for major studios shutting down. At the same time some of the deserve it with their anti consumer tactics.

Like a lot of people have stated, MMO and 'connected' single players game (Dark Souls eg) can use the feature to make the game a much better experience. But the single player only stuff boggles my mind sometimes. The devs keep saying they're moving away from the single player only system, but I'll always enjoy my single player games like many, many gamers. I just don't get how they can be gamers and developers at the same time and decide something so selfish.

It needs to be limited for those of who have unstable connections.

Having the ability to download your data while your machine is 'off' is potentially another very useful feature. But again, it needs to be an optional or limited feature. You got the connection great, you benefit from all the features. You don't? Your loss, fair enough but don't limit gameplay because of it.

 

[Dibbz]

I wasn't suggesting that there were no online-only games before WoW or that there were no online-only games on consoles (I even mentioned FFXI). All I'm saying is that publishers saw the enormous success of WoW and it gave many of them the confidence to invest tons of money into making a game that was also online only. What I'm saying is that consoles haven't had a WoW and maybe Bungie wants to make the first console game that proves to other developers you can make a huge bet on online-only console games and be incredibly successful.

You act like CoD hasn't already set the console world alight.