Ubisoft's Mallat says audience is ready for always-online

Some people are ready. But as mentioned above the internet infrastructure isn't neccesarily ready.

Posted:4 days ago

I'm technically ready. However, I'm not sold on customer benefits for imposed online until a real case can be put forward...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Adam Campbell on 16th April 2013 5:25pm

Posted:3 days ago

My phone works offline to play Candy Crush Saga, listen to FM radio, watch saved videos, take photos etc. Even facebook allows you to read cached status and messages

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Craig Burkey on 16th April 2013 9:08am

Posted:3 days ago

I want offline singleplayer, I have long been opposed to the multiplayer centric shift in the gaming industry that CoD and so forth have brought along. Not to say I don't support it, but I feel it's the sole reason that cash strapped companies resort to making MMOs instead of doing what their good at (TOR I'm looking at you). What I didn't see was that Multiplayer in general has the side effect of making good DRM. You can't connect to the servers if you don't have a username/password that is connected to a real serial. So multiplayer means more physical copies sold.

To that end, I'm split about AO singleplayer. Firstly I hate social. I'd like to be able to play the single player games that I choose, not be forced to buy what my other gaming friends do. I am not sheep, I do not adhere to herd mentality in exchange for in-game trinkets So to that end Always Online singleplayer will always be useless to me, as the added functionality is pretty much solidly in that camp. I hate the idea, and limitations of AO, and always will.

But at the same time, desperately wanting to save great singleplayer games, and have as many around as possible, I'm tempted to say that maybe I would allow AO games if they were just executed properly. This article reminded me about Assassins Creed game I had and I never even noticed the always online aspect. It would be a same to see games go this way, but if it's that or not see the game at all, I would pick the former.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andrew Ihegbu on 16th April 2013 9:57am

Posted:3 days ago

I want offline singleplayer

So do I, and at least for the type of games I favor the most it make a lot of sense.

I hate the idea, and limitations of AO, and always will.

While I don't hate anything myself, I am not very eager to buy my own shackles and put them on willingly. Offline mode will be a necessity for my future purchases and the only thing I don't really like is that I will have to be more informed and careful reading the requirements before purchasing anything to find the deal breaker Always-Online.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Eric Pallavicini on 16th April 2013 10:29am

Posted:3 days ago

"As soon as players don't have to worry, then they will only take into account the benefits that those services bring," Mallat said. "And I agree, these services need to provide clear benefits. It's important to be able to provide direct connections between us and our consumers, whether that's extra content or online services, a lot of successful games have that."

This is the main statement he makes that says why current always online games that aren't specifically multiplayer, are sadly lacking... make a service I want and feel I need... Not force a service on me that offers NOTHING to me that I want nor benefit from and tell me thats what I need, "you know.. cause we say so!"

Posted:3 days ago

"Always online" will come at the peril only of the major players in the gaming industry. If they are going to adopt this strategy against the wishes of a majority of their clientele and it doesn't work, the people will "deal with it" simply by walking away, never to return. For an industry that has come this far, it'd be foolish to risk blowing it up all for the purpose of making sure companies are squeezing every last dime possible.

Posted:3 days ago

Why do the giants insist that 'we' are ready? To what benefit would this ever be to the consumer? Further, do they live in a world with no infrastructure issues, no service provider downtime, and no remote (rural) connections? I suppose if I'm in the same suite of buildings where my software is developed and tested, the idea of always on makes sense. UNTIL you look around and see what the rest of the world looks like. But here is the problem. When people only see things from their own perspective, the suffer such a lack of perspective that it is entirely possible for that giant to make ego-centricly horrid decisions that result in financial loss to the company, pain for disrupted employees, and a crisis to the consumer. There are other ways to address piracy than full-on DRM! Think harder!!!

Posted:3 days ago

Much like Steam, a game and/or game console MUST have an option for when the Internet is down. Just having it always online is not worth it.

I don't understand why these studio heads are so hell-bent on ignoring the consumers. Have they learned nothing from the terrible experiences this brings to their player base?

Wake up and smell reality. Just because you want to push it, doesn't mean that all of your fan base or future fan base has the infrastructure to support an always online feature.

The ineptness is borderline ridiculous.

Posted:3 days ago

Real world gaming behaviour has shifted massively away from single player to online social and multiplayer.

Problem is this isn't true for all games and there will still continue to be singleplayer experiences. If they incorporate multi-player and social features, these should always be optional. Facebook is an online, cloud based service. As it stands, God of War III (random game example) is not.

So long as it benefits me, I'll keep my devices always online by choice. However, if its an imposed feature, the case has to be a very good one for the customer to accept it.

The potential of being always online is great, but it needs to be matched up with justification especially if users will have to consider down time or online features they may not want. Like I said earlier, it works for me technically, but we need to know what we're getting if the console has to be permanently online to function.

Posted:3 days ago

If it's Always Online then for the next Xbox I'm Always Pirating.

Posted:3 days ago

@Bruce

That is a very slanted view and alienates hundreds of thousands of players and more.

As a gamer, I do not want to be handcuffed to my internet provider to be able to enjoy a game. It is obtuse to think that everyone, everywhere, shares the same kind of consistent access to stable technology.

Would you want to shave off 30% or more of your profits?

I would think not.

Posted:3 days ago

Of course Ubisoft PC customers clearly told them they hated this approach enough to start boycotting their PC releases until they backed down. I guess they think that if the platform is always online, they can use it without taking the blame, and without any competitors on the same platform doing anything different.
But Ubisoft, your customers will still hate it, and I didn't hear anyone mention any benefits you brought to the table whilst using always online. I did hear a lot of pc gamers swearing about you though.

Posted:3 days ago

"If it's Always Online then for the next Xbox I'm Always Pirating."

Or you could buy a PS3 or play on PC...................

Posted:2 days ago

I have both PC and PS3 along side Wii U but there are experiences that I do want on Xbox. The Halo series, Fez, Battle Block Theatre, and Xbox Live Indie Games among many other exclusives. I do want to support devs, shit I would be a hypocrite otherwise since I want to make money from making games, but I do not want to be always online. I'll just send the devs money in the mail so they could go to the pub or something.

I don't see a reason for there to be always online unless it's an MMO.

Posted:Yesterday