CliffyB: "Technology doesn't advance by worrying about the edge case"

there's a whole new generation of kids who are growing up always online who won't really give a shit."

Very true. Even my 360, PS3 and original Xbox are always online because they are hooked up to my wireless network. And many people can say the same thing about their phones. laptops, tablets, etc. So I see where he's coming from. I personally wouldn't have that much of a problem with "always-online" if there was some kind of built-in offline mode for those "just in case" scenarios.

I definitely have a good internet connection but that doesn't mean my internet doesn't sporatically go out every now and then on a nice sunny day for no reason. And thats the thing that would annoy me the most, if my internet(not power) goes down for a few hours when I'm in the middle of playing something.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Jace on 12th April 2013 3:26am

Posted:7 days ago

Those that have been lucky enough to sit through the "always connected" business summary that EA, MS and Sony have been peddling to visitors will be aware that the original plan aimed for a "Always available, not always on" model! - allowing wiggle room round complaints concerning 'constantly connected' (CC). Like the Wii-U it needs to "check-in" (updates) periodically, but is not always on!

The jumping of the gun regarding leaks and rumors on XB720 has forced the hand to have to defend the business plan, and also play fast and loose with the reality that will hoist this on a not so happy audience. Media keen to be not blacklisted from the launches have kept quiet, leaving the manufacturers to put their case through a series of B-lister executives defending CC.

Fundamentally, the battle for the living room has reverted to the battle for the pipe into the house, controlling and monetizing content in, and also linking this to a subscription model with micro-payments with added value services (and selling data mining). What had been previously touted as "two tier" internet, has reverted to "smart boxes"

It is just a shame that the consumer games market has been so hard headed and immature that it will miss out over the control of the market they spent so long to build-up. I wonder what the disillusioned developers will go off and do when the reality sets in that there will be a decimation in new releases with Gen-8, and there will be no place at the table for the majority of developers?

Posted:7 days ago

@DeShaun Zollicoffer
"Sure, a computer is basically useless without Internet, but it still works."

BWUH?!!

I don't know which century you were born in DeShaun but my PC does 99% of everythiing I do even when it's offline. :) Whether that's playing games, office applications and photo/image-editing programmes.... My internet application may be used a lot because "it's there" but it's only a very small feature out of the whole set of a PC.

Posted:7 days ago

When i read anything about Cliff Bleszinski i have the feeling he gets payd for it..

Posted:7 days ago

I always found it silly when mobile phones didn't work without sim cards, I just wanted to play snakes!

The question that they really want to answer right now is whether they can get away with always-on and be more profitable (well that's a no brainer). I'd say go ahead and try it. Maybe the 2010's can be the decade where the always-on media-hub battles it out with the consoles.

And in all honesty he is right about not worrying about fringe cases. You can't roll out sky and cable everywhere. I remember being 200m from one of the central videotron hubs in London (I think it was) and not having access to cable for over a decade. My current house has no access to cable either and only recently have we had access to fibre optic broadband (via BT).

Perhaps the product just needs to be marketed as a separate product as a competitor and not a replacement for consoles, which again brings me to my idea of the grand duel.

Posted:7 days ago

Always Online helped in sales? Haha! Nice. I know at least 10 players which like me resigned from buying long awaited diablo and Simcity vs 2 who decided to buy it and they regret. Simply because we live in area where internet comes and goes "as it feels fit".
I had Xbox360 but I will not buy any new console which enforces online status to play games for the same reason.

At the moment real 99.9% guaranteed internet can be available mostly only in 4-5Km around exchanges even in UK. Think about how many worse cases you get all over the world and then make your bet as I'm ready to put money on it. Those games will sell far better without enforced online state and I doubt they will lose any of those players because "they don't force you to be online".

You may say its piracy which will take part of their cake... but I bet piracy accelerates sales far more than most of those "anti piracy! go go DRM" think. DRM kills sales, mostly because its usually done wrong. aslways online kills sales because world doesn't offer stable enough connection everywhere. In few years though I think we could go for it, just not yet.

Posted:7 days ago

As Paul said at the top, CliffyB's argument is flawed as he does not distinguish between advancing technology and advancing consumer value. MS XBox division is not some research center pushing the boundaries of science for its own sake, they are a producer of consumer goods. They are a business, and as a business their reason of existence is to provide value to the consumer.

To be clear, I too think that the future is online and we will get there eventually. It's inevitable. But we will get there not for advancing technology for its own sake, but only when someone figures out how to create genuine value out of it for the consumer. It's technology entrepreneurship 101 really. OnLive had a good shot at that; you had to be online but at the same time you could play on any old pc as a benefit. Their value proposition was much better than a needlessly always online XBox. We know how that ended.

Posted:7 days ago

@ Taylan

Nicely put. Though I'm pretty sure there's an MBA in a corner office somewhere saying, "The reason business exists is to make money and provide maximum return on investment." </sigh>

I don't doubt that a genuinely universally available Internet, anywhere, anytime, anything, will eventually happen. Leaving aside thorny philosophical questions like whether or not it should, the big question is, as you say, what value there is for the consumer. If it was a case of "always available" as opposed to "always on," I imagine people would find it more acceptable. Sometimes, we just want to unplug from the world. We don't want to deal with dudebros teabagging us in Halo. We don't want to read friends' feeds on Facebook or Twitter. We just want a little solitude, a little "me" time, even in our games. Everybody may be connected, literally or figuratively, but sometimes, we need to block the connections for our own good, just for a little while.

Posted:7 days ago

Quick note for the author:

"Bleszinski believes that early adopters will be always-online anyways" <-- ANYWAYS is a non-standard form of "anyway". I know people like Adam Sandler use it but it has no place in a written article, at least not if you take your writing seriously. Just my two cents.

Moving on...

This whole concept is interesting. My 360 and PS3 are both ALWAYS ONLINE currently, so this doesn't really change a thing for me. I think the most important thing will be making sure we have clear, accurate, and easily accessible privacy settings. If I don't want to be seen online, I would want to be able to play offline (although still technically connected to the servers). I definitely see the complication if one wanted to play somewhere without internet access.

In the end, they have to show how the consumer benefits from this constant connection. I think Christopher and Patrick hit the nail on the head.

Posted:7 days ago

@Christopher ... and all other hardcore gamers on this board....
Get out of your momma's basement. Gaming has been online for the past 2 decades, and what many developers are saying is online is not only a great feature in gaming (in terms of actually taking a socially unacceptable concept, a geek/nerd fest, or any other derogatory term associated with the culture) and turned into a social networking medium.

Always-on has always been looked to as something the developers, the hardware designers, and of course the big corp and shareholders view as a simply a money-maker. What CliffyB and Andreas above is just pointing to is that online is not going to be simply a future, but a requirement for the future of gaming.

Several things in the history of gaming have turned simple nerd-gasms into something as actually cool and socially acceptable. Competitive gameplay (requiring multiplayer), the realignment of gaming content to involve girls (and thus dissolving the gender barrier), and the marketing of gaming to the general demographic (instead of the fat boy in his momma's basement) has lead to the success of MMO, mobile gaming via social networks, and the whole idea of achievements (just to name a few).

Without online, none of the above would have worked. Always online should be seen (if done correctly) as advancement in gaming, a revolution in terms of culture. And hopefully this destroy this whole hardcore gamer (the ever so vocal minority) versus the general gamer. The hardcore gamer always speak about their history of single player gaming and what not... But the actual marketing fact is that single player truly is dead... For every game to be revered, there has to be something that allows the player to connect to the world, even if it is as simple as achievements. Hardcore nerds will moan and groan at this. But bringing up examples of the GOAT single player games does not change the fact, that popular culture is not focused on these games.

Popular culture, and hence the general majority are happier trying to beat each other's score in candy crush, destroy each other's egos in CoD, or just plain comparing achievements in the latest "single player" game. Gaming is about human interaction now, not just human interacting with the machine.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Anthony Chan on 12th April 2013 7:01pm

Posted:7 days ago

AND @ Christopher... I really wanted to let it go... but

I will always think - and write - from the perspective of the consumer.

No... no you don't. You write from the perspective of the gamer, and a hardcore gamer, or the ultimate nerd for that matter. Which is far from the perspective of the consumer (extremely generic isn't it). Please differentiate and do not misrepresent.

Posted:7 days ago

Maybe I'm mistaken, but nobody here said that online is a bad thing. Online features are great. Multiplayer gaming is great. MMOs are great. But you choose to partake in them. You choose to either play something online or you choose to do something that isn't. So you aren't a big fan of choice then?

I won't give the "get out of your momma's basement" retort the benefit of a rebuttal, but as someone who really gets out of his "basement" regularly, you would know that the more you get out, the less connected you can become. Ever tried playing Diablo 3 on the train? On a plane? Ever tried doing that with the limited data plans of most mobile providers?

Yes, multiplayer games need internet access. But not every game is multiplayer enabled. Not every game needs to have every moment spammed to twitter or facebook. Not every game needs to phone home every 2 minutes to be played. No game or console needs to be always online. Execs want it to be. Want. Not "need". That's all there is to it. No sugarcoating necessary.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Patrick Heyer on 12th April 2013 8:05pm

Posted:7 days ago

@Patrick
The "get out of your momma's basement" is geared more at Christopher's consistent "give a shit" tone towards "celebrity" developers, designers, and of course the "suits".... so no rebuttal needed. The "momma" comment against the immaturity that represents hardcore gamers and what I view again as a syndrome this small group has. They are fixated with how they think gaming should be, and they dictate that developers and designers should listen. Hence, I am trying to tell them grow up, and get outside. At the end of the day, we can talk about how companies making games are in it for the money and not for the game. But also as the "MBA in the corner office" type, I completely can understand that. Making games requires money to make them. It requires money to sell them. So of course it only makes sense that companies care about the best revenue generating strategies.

At the same time, there is no need for the hate, anger and despise for online only products. You gave good examples where single player does benefit... where there is no connection essentially. However, in a world as we continue to advance networking technology and internet speeds do keep increasing, gaming should be one of the entertainment types that is at the front leading the charge!

Also, in my opinion, games are more fun with friends; whether they are friends I already know, or they are friends who meet in game. You are right. Games DO NOT NEED to be online. Games DO NOT NEED to be multiplayer. But as we move forward with a technological ideal where the internet can connect people around the world in ways that would not have been imagined when pong came out, gaming should definitely keep pace. The new Xbox shares this ideal (maybe I am naive).

Gaming for the future should not be limited to single player experiences. The future of gaming being able to be enjoyed by all ages, gender, demographics, and wealth classes depends on it being a social activity. Online is the only way this is possible....

So I apologize for my tirade earlier... but Christopher in this post and last posts does pull heart strings with his contempt for the companies that dominate this industry. It is sad and frustrating to see that the shenanigans complaining about big corp as experienced on the D3 forums make it here to a message board meant for industry subject matter experts.

Posted:7 days ago

Gaming for the future should not be limited to single player experiences

No, but neither should it exclude them, as your "Single player is dead," comment in an earlier post suggested. Skyrim, Dishonoured, the Witcher, Bioshock Infinite, Deus ex Human Revolution. All these games show a lot of people like single player, I'm pretty sure few people bought GTA IV or RDR predominantly for the online modes, even if they do play them. Requiring a connection for these adds no benifit, even if for someone with a stable connection there is little disadvantage. At least until the server is shut off. Clearly online games or features need online, and no one is suggesting they shouldn't.

Posted:7 days ago

That and the Torment, Wasteland and other hugely successful SP Kickstarters would want a few words with Mr. chan...

Posted:7 days ago

The always-on and F2P debates both share the common fact that those features only benefit the developer, not the consumer. The player can only get a lesser experience from those two things. I'm not arguing against multiplayer, or even online features in SP games (Demon's Soul / Dark Souls for example), I'm talking about forcing them on the consumer. Every suggestion that those things benefit the player is false.

Posted:6 days ago

@Anthony: A "momma's basement" reference, eh? Go fuck yourself.

I'll say one more thing: as a consumer, being told to "deal with" something being foisted upon me is never a good way to make me purchase your product. If that's going to be the case, sure; I have more than enough games from this, and other, generations to keep me busy for decades.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Christopher Bowen on 13th April 2013 6:57pm

Posted:6 days ago

@Christopher Bowen

"My larger point being that people "inside" the industry - designers, programmers, etc. - are all in favour of something like always-online DRM, despite - or even considering - the fact that none of this brings any advantage to consumers. Zero advantage. None."

Exactly. The industry's push for always-on also highlights a much larger problem which applies to all corporations in all industries. Which is that corporate board members and senior executives now refuse to reconcile their fiduciary duty (and desire to increase their personal wealth) with their ethical and moral responsibilities to act in the best interests of their employees, consumers and their country. So implementing always-on is simply about increasing corporate and shareholder profits, and executive compensation. It is not about better serving consumers or providing them with added value.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Serrano on 14th April 2013 7:07pm

Posted:5 days ago

@Christopher:

"My larger point being that people "inside" the industry - designers, programmers, etc. - are all in favour of something like always-online DRM, despite - or even considering - the fact that none of this brings any advantage to consumers. Zero advantage. None."

I really don't want to sound patronizing or condescending. But how do you KNOW that always online brings zero advantage? I mean - first of all we do not know what an "always-on" option would look like if, yes IF, MS really does have it for the Durango. Do you honestly think that MS is full of suits just counting money? do you not think there is a single "gamer" in the company who would point out that certain contingency plans need to be made?

As for people inside the industry being in favour of always online. Well as i said before, i have no agenda with that. And i don't see it as DRM. I actually see potential. I'd like the challenge to develop new ways of gaming based around the fact that i can guarantee that my customer is going to be online. I'd like to get creative with that fact and let it influece what i do. And then, if we "insiders" get the chance to do that (if always-on really happens), then maybe even people as vehemently opposed as you will have to grudingly accept that maybe, just maybe, ther could be some advantage to consumers.

Anthony is right with the fact that you don't really represent the consumer. I am a consumer (as well as an dev) and i would like to have new games that leverage always on (if that's what the console requires). Sure if it's just used as a DRM, then i'll be dissapointed in the long run - though not bothered because i am always on now. So you certainly don't represent my point of view. I would not go as far as Anthony, but i agree with his sentiment, that those that are not in favor of always on are actually a rather small segment of the target demographic.

I would argue that the mass market simple won't know the difference. They will see the next shiny toy, MS will give them a great demo and marketing reel about how always on will transform their lives (if always on is indeed going to happen) - there will probably be some hip kids, models and family scnes involved, and then people will queue to buy the console. Just like people queue to get the latest iphone, 6 months after the bought the last one.

With that said: lets wait and see what MS really announce shall we?

Also Christopher: while Anthony was quite blunt in his statement, your outburst of vulgar language is not really professional.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andreas Gschwari on 15th April 2013 7:42am

Posted:4 days ago

As someone working in the industry i am obviously not a big fan of the second hand games market

I can see where you're coming from as an individual but not from an industry perspective. I don't see it as a general consensus that we're better off without the used market. I think people should have just as much right to buy and sell used games as they do cars or other item they have, I know plenty of others who agree as well as disagree.

Posted:4 days ago

@Adam: i never said people should not have the right to re-sell their product. I think that's totally ok.

That is why i think we should make games that people do not WANT to re-sell.

I am also not a big fan at all of how the used games market is handled. If i go into Game her in Sweden and i walk up to the counter with a copy of a game, i get actually asked if i wanted the used version, which is (for a new release) about 5 GPB cheaper. It is that push to try and sell second hand copies, which has nothing to do with consumer choice and rights.

If second hand sales would still be the way it was say 10 years ago, when i brought the free games i got at Eidos to a specialist store and traded them in for some used games from other companies, i would have no issue at all.

Personally i really like the approach EA have taken. For their title to play online, you need the online pass. If you buy the game used, you pay 10 USD to get that. You can still buy a game used, but the extra pricing will make you think twice for a new release when used copies are not that much cheaper as a brand new copy. In the long run, this service keeps games active longer.

I can see a similar system develop if always on comes to be. People can still trade games, but there might be an extra fee to activate it a second time - the seller has still the right to sell it, and prices will regulate keeping an activation fee in mind. The developer and publisher get a bit of a share that way.

Posted:4 days ago

If people are selling their games during the key sales window I'd imagine the game was just not fulfilling enough.

I never trade my games because they are THAT awesome, even the promo ones that aren't so awesome because I quite like the look of my beautiful cascading collection of games. Makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something in a contest nobody knows about!



I'm just curious. I want to see an always on machine that has some awesome feature that isn't possible with consoles. I want to see a different product, maybe some innovation on controls, interaction or something that doesn't yet have an inteligible description because it is so innovative.

I want something new. Damn it I just want to be surprised, amazed and challenged.

Posted:4 days ago