"It's the future, just accept it."

[rob_simple]

On the other hand

PS4 with a PSVita and having your console always online DOES actually allow play anywhere i believe... streaming via wifi from ps4 to the vita. Or is it only local and not internet? that i'm not sure on.

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

 

[Strazdas]

i wasnt expecting this. more like in google glass thread, about new technology.
there is aboslutely no justification for always online requirement with exception of a game being a multiplayer only game that has to be online to actually be played (as in calcualtion done on server, MMO thing) since then you cant really go around without it. but for singleplayer, which is what i do most, nope.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I'm not going to accept it. The companies should accept that consumers are the ones that are making the rules. If you put a product out there that I don't like, I DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT! Accept that.

 

[K12]

The "it's the future" point is weirdly fatalistic, the future doesn't just happen on its own! It's a guess. Here's another one "Microsoft will lose this generation of the "console war", just accept it". What are the odds that this will just be accepted?

No one has ever really attempted to justify the "always on for everything" requirement, although lots of people think they have. They just talk about the benefits and features of online content and connectivity and ignore or gloss over the "always on" stuff as if it's not important.

Image a restaurant that had bacon in all its most popular dishes, which also happened to have the highest profit margins. Many regulars only ever order dishes with bacon in and the most common comment made by customers is that they want more bacon. We would still consider it to be mental for the restaurant to require bacon in all main courses. Bacon is good but maybe sometimes I don't want bacon. Maybe I'm a vegetarian or Jewish/ Muslim or maybe I'm watching my weight and can only manage a light salad. I've slightly lost track of this metaphor.

 

[K12]

New thought, just throwing it out there.

Does anyone think that an always online requirement might do something to quell the unnecessary and imbalancing addition of multi-player to games which are mainly single player?

Hear me out, single player only games are harder to protect against piracy because they can be played offline without be

So if a developer sticks in online multiplayer they have a way of sticking online DRM and (in their minds) reduce losses from piracy and used games. At the very least they can feel better by withholding some of their content from those who don't buy new.

But if the single player is online anyway they can fit this DRM in without needing use up development resources and adapting game mechanics to work as online multipayer.

So one of the main appeals of tagged on multiplayer is removed, potentially reducing its appeal.

This is in no way a defense of "always online" (or DRM for that matter). If the argument holds up (and I'm not sure if it does) then it at best is a happy side effect to "always online" becoming a standard.

 

[Madman123456]

You know who gets to decides how the future will look like?
Me.
Well, me and every other potential customer.

Alright, let's say People where generally on board with the idea of online connectivity. Because it's the future, apparently.
Some People would then decide that their router is too crappy or their internet is not reliable enough or they can't do it for some reason or another. They'll say "oh well, seems i'm not ready for the future yet. I'll buy the new console later, whenever i get around to it.".

Microsoft would've been in for a rude awakening.

"It's the future!" is pretty much the stupidest argument that can possibly be made. No substance, it says absolutely nothing. The bronze age was the future, seen from the stone age.
One could've said that in this day and age, internet infrastructure is developed far enough, or will be developed far enough soon to have something like that be not overly annoying for most customers.
"It's the future" is an argument so astoundingly stupid that i would strongly recommend that the guy sees a doctor because apparently the speech center in his brain isn't working properly.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I think it's important to stress that in the video those two people also bring up negatives of always-online experiences;

1. You won't be able to play a game without a constant internet connection

2. There WILL be day-one server issues due to the nature of the games

3. Game companies will easily be able to data-mine players, including you

4. Accounts can be more easily hacked

5. "Recurring Costs" (from their conversation I interpret that as "Companies will go crazy with forcing the player to pay them more money")

6. Because of account-based ties the idea of used games will vanish

While I believe that those arguments listed above are not the strongest arguments against always-online games, we should realize that this is not a one-sided debate.

As for those points made in favor of always-online games; he really needed to rephrase some and "It's The Future" is not an argument for something happening. "It's The Future" said in a non-personal context (AKA "I Believe It's The Future") is something bandwagoning enthusiasts say when they want to feel superior to other individuals.

 

[1Life0Continues]

"It's the future...so long as you live in a country where cities have symmetrical, unlimited bandwidth internet connections."

It forgets that internet tends to be asymmetrical, and is metered and restricted in many countries across the world. It excludes those areas in which the internet is not as strong, the infrastructure is old or outdated, or have to rely on wireless connections that aren't exactly the most stable things. It excludes children's wards in hospitals in which unshielded internet connections can interfere with medical equipment. It excludes service men and women that play to unwind after their tours. It strips gaming back to the few and privileged that can afford the service that caters to their specific needs. And you can guarantee, said service will not be cheap.

It's a justification for excluding gamers that they don't feel should be playing their systems. It's a justification for treating customers like criminals. It's a way for them to maintain tight and strict control over their product and milk you for every penny you have, while telling you it's for your own good.

Or something like that...

 

[Savagezion]

Always online is definitely the future, but future is the key word there. A lot of countries just don't have the infrastructure set up to accommodate always on gaming for a huge part of their population. Hell, America is basically the biggest game buying juggernaut there is, but if you go to the mid west the internet connections are absolutely atrocious. Sure, in the big city you generally have pretty decent internet, but the great thing about gaming is that it's available everywhere that people live, and considering there's tons of people who live out in the sticks where they only have one, extremely crappy, extremely overpriced internet provider who would not be able to handle always online games.

Eventually things will change (hopefully). Eventually the majority of people will have google fiber, or something similar, and will be able to download a gig per second, but until then always online shouldn't be a requirement for gaming. It's too exclusionary to people who live in places where they don't get a choice in internet provider and can barely get anything above dial-up (which is a surprisingly large amount of places).

Exactly my thoughts. I'll also add that every time I see someone spouting that only 3rd world countries have poor or no internet, it makes me hope that they are somehow forced to move out of a large city in America, to find out very large parts of America don't have so much as cell phone reception. Why do you think Verizon had the motto "Can you hear me now?" Many small towns and miles of land in the center of the USA rely on Verizon because ATT just focuses on largely populated areas. Get stranded in B.F.E.? ATT cant help you, try finding a hill... then pray. Even ol verizon has its moments where it cant help you. And that is cell phone service, internet is even worse.
Anyone who claims that most of the country has internet, needs to leave the city more often... or for once. Whenever I see people state such things, I can see that they know very little about their own country - much less the world and how to run a nation wide business in it.

 

[Woodsey]

Always-online probably is the future. Key words: THE FUCKING FUTURE. 'The Future' famously being 'Not Now'.

People aren't ready for it, countries aren't ready for it - especially the US in many areas, which you'd think these morons would get considering they're based there - and companies aren't ready for it.

 

[WWmelb]

On the other hand

PS4 with a PSVita and having your console always online DOES actually allow play anywhere i believe... streaming via wifi from ps4 to the vita. Or is it only local and not internet? that i'm not sure on.

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

Well, Sony have definitely stated that all PS4 games CAN be streamed to the Vita, i'm just unsure if it is local only or not. Was an article here somewhere that stated that dev's had to include the support when developing for PS4.

 

[Nazulu]

It has nothing to do with the future, you already covered it well OP. It's actually "surrender your freedom", or

Translated: "accept everything new blindly"

Perfectly summed up their stupid points.

Really, I think it's that these pubs/devs let the new technology fill their head with the possibility's while forgetting who they're leaving behind. Like making art that only the artist can understand. They forgot how to make the perfect experience because they are so focused on upgrading and stuffing everything into small spaces.

As usually I retort by just saying the future should be about CONVENIENCE!!!

 

[Something Amyss]

Online connectivity is the future. It's just not the present. Americans have slows speeds and bandwidth caps. Protesting can get you kicked off a service, and Comcast and Time Warner have a duopoly. I can't speak much for other nations, but they're targeting us as a primary market.

What they're trying to do is shape the future, one where you need permission to play, sell, lend, or think about your games. If they don't get that, they might end up with technology akin to the CD: something beloved my consumers for being a versatile and easy-to-use device that thwarts every attempt to supplant it. An open internet, an open future is a nightmare to corporations, especially American ones.

 

[TrevHead]

I can imagine alot of games tying themselves to the cloud even if it's for some arbitrary shit like been able to look at stats on your mobile. However I don't think as many games will beable to get away with it past the initial launch period especially niche games that are flops but still need supporting to keep playable.

I think we will see a more practical approach from alot of game makers, have the cloud stuff in the game but the game is still playable without it. To fully exclude offline players is folly, best make it like PC gaming was over a decade ago. Back then I was offline but was still able to play Unreal Tournament offline with bots and get all my demos and patches of the cover CD of magazines.

If you look at the worst of DLC and gouging in this console gen, it's mostly just the AAA blockbusters that do it, while alot of the smaller budget boxed console games didn't, because they would risk losing too big a % of sales.

I think AAA's before long will realise that they can't continue to force the BS "future" on to us without providing for offline players and use when the servers go down. The 4 PS4 to 1 X1 preorders at my local game store is just the beginning of gamers finally pushing back.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, if this is the future, I guess I'm a retro gamer now!

I never really understood the "It's the future!" argument. There's a humongous gap between "bleeding edge enthusiast" and "Luddite", and I'm happy to sit somewhere in that spectrum.

 

[rob_simple]

On the other hand

PS4 with a PSVita and having your console always online DOES actually allow play anywhere i believe... streaming via wifi from ps4 to the vita. Or is it only local and not internet? that i'm not sure on.

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

Well, Sony have definitely stated that all PS4 games CAN be streamed to the Vita, i'm just unsure if it is local only or not. Was an article here somewhere that stated that dev's had to include the support when developing for PS4.

Hm, I'm wondering if it'll work the same as the WiiU gamepad. I can see that happening, but it still wouldn't facilitate gaming anywhere.

From what I've read, the Vita can use cloud-streaming to play PS3 games on the go --although, again, that presumably relies on you maintaining a stable wi-fi/internet connection while out of the house, which is near impossible to do if you're on a bus or a train-- but PS4 connectivity will work more like the WiiU, where the PS4 just changes the optical output from your TV to your Vita. I just can't see the Vita being powerful enough to run PS4 games on its own, cloud-streaming or not.

It's still cool, but nowhere near the future these chaps are saying we're living in already.

 

[Souplex]

It won't officially be the future until either Jetpacks or Pew-Pew weaponry become standard military equipment.

 

[Rob Robson]

Nope. I didn't even touch Steam with a ten foot pole for almost 7 years until they fixed their offline mode. Now I'm happy to use it. Nobody's sacred, if your business model conflicts with my ideals, you won't get my money and I'll still get to play your games.

No matter how realiable the internet and electricity ever get, having to go through the internet to use my media licenses will always be entirely unacceptable, barring 100% multiplayer games.

Hell, I'm a photo-journalist by trade and will be sticking to Adobe Photoshop CS6 seemingly forever, since they created a no-client streaming service only policy now. It doesn't matter who you are. You are dead to me.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Sadly (or insultingly), the mentality right now in AAA is to throw a list of buzzwords at the market's face repeatedly hoping it sticks:
"Community" "Cloud Processing" "The FUTURE!" "Evolution" "-Experience!"
"Social media! Smartphones! Tablets! Mobile!"

In theory it can work but in practice, for the majority of games (non-MMOs, basically), all they are doing is tripling the critical points of failure. (From a single LOCAL HOST to LOCAL HOST + REMOTE SERVER + INTERNET CLOUD)

Why? So they can push gaming into some comfy control-system which makes investors and marketing happy.
It will end with price hikes, more skewed cost-content ratios, and yet more arm twisting for the legitimate customer.

Always-Online is not about enhancing the end-user's experience because most of those "enhancements" touted already exist in hybrid Online/Offline systems (only with the offline component stripped out), and those that don't are nowhere near practical for most of mainstream gaming's primary markets (like cloud computing, which requires EXTREMELY low ping for processing done on a per-frame basis).

SUMMARY: It doesn't matter if they think or want it to be "The future" of gaming. The most practical platform design in gaming already exists: those that let the player choose.

Eliminating that choice is logically indefensible, no matter how many features they claim to provide on the side.

 

[WWmelb]

On the other hand

PS4 with a PSVita and having your console always online DOES actually allow play anywhere i believe... streaming via wifi from ps4 to the vita. Or is it only local and not internet? that i'm not sure on.

I'd heard something similar but I find it hard to believe. As I understand it, the Vita can run PS3 games, but how can an arguably last gen handheld run what is supposed to be the cutting edge in next-gen console gaming?

Maybe I just need a tech lesson, but it seems that even if it can be done, it will be a lot more restrictive than 'play any of your PS4 games anywhere with Vita and a wifi connection'.

Well, Sony have definitely stated that all PS4 games CAN be streamed to the Vita, i'm just unsure if it is local only or not. Was an article here somewhere that stated that dev's had to include the support when developing for PS4.

Hm, I'm wondering if it'll work the same as the WiiU gamepad. I can see that happening, but it still wouldn't facilitate gaming anywhere.

From what I've read, the Vita can use cloud-streaming to play PS3 games on the go --although, again, that presumably relies on you maintaining a stable wi-fi/internet connection while out of the house, which is near impossible to do if you're on a bus or a train-- but PS4 connectivity will work more like the WiiU, where the PS4 just changes the optical output from your TV to your Vita. I just can't see the Vita being powerful enough to run PS4 games on its own, cloud-streaming or not.

It's still cool, but nowhere near the future these chaps are saying we're living in already.

Very true. However i guess we'll see in the near future how well it all works and to what degree. I do give props to sony on this kind of integration though. It is a pretty cool concept in theory.