Overwritten.net
Games => General Gaming => Topic started by: MysterD on Wednesday, February 06, 2013, 03:44:25 PM
-
Anyone want to buy an always online required, BR supported, no used-games allowed console called the X-Box 720?
That's the latest rumor:
http://www.egmnow.com/articles/news/rumor-next-xbox-to-be-always-online-no-secondhand-games-blu-ray-discs-and-a-new-kinect/
-
the online-only/no used games thing would severely impede my desire for one.
-
I have trouble believing the always online thing. The rest seems plausible though.
-
No future consoles for me, especially given those sorts of trends. Maybe PS4 someday since I don't have a dedicated movie player and use my PS3 for everything, but never another Microsoft piece of shit unless I get way less busy and a whole lot richer.
-
"Always online" thing sounds CRAZY to me. If Microsoft is headed that route - they're insane.
I could be wrong here - but I don't think most of the rest of the world has caught up connection-wise to what the USA is doing here.
"No used games" sounds more logical to me - but, I'm sure consumers will have a major outcry just over this alone!
-
What I read today mentioned a one-time online activation through a code included with the game. It still sucks, but not terminally so (like a forced constant connection does). It's all speculation at this point, and Microsoft is not the only purveyor of consoles in the world either. If they want to shoot themselves in the head, hopefully the other players won't follow suit.
-
I would be completely disinterested in that console.
-
I just don't believe these rumors about always online and second hand games. It would be a death sentence.
-
That would certainly kill consoles for me.
It seems the only demographic a device like this would appeal to are the hordes of Call of Duty Multiplayer console addicts: they have to be online anyway and they buy the game on day 1 (if they haven't already pre-ordered it).
We'll have to see what Sony announces with the PS4 but either way it will be a long time before I move on to a new console. I'm happy with my PS3 as it is and my PC is my primary gaming device anyway.
-
I don't think it would scare me away from consoles (note that I've really only played a handful of games on my PS3 and only really use it as a media server and thats why I probably wouldn't be too upset), but it'd be hillarious to see the back room proceedings and Prisoner's Dilemma arguments going on while they talked about this (and they would have to talk about this).
-
GameStop warns Microsoft on rumored used game-blocking console (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/gamestop-warns-microsoft-on-rumored-used-game-blocking-console/)
GameStop is taking to the press to try to highlight just how damaging a used-game-free system would be to a hardware maker's brand. Speaking to Bloomberg, GameStop spokesman Matt Hodges said the company's surveys of customers show that they would be much less likely to purchase a console that didn't let them buy or sell their used games.
“We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability, or not play new physical games,” Hodges said.
Never thought I'd stand in agreement with GameStop :P but it's pretty obvious what their motivation is as major second-hand retailer.
-
The issue needs exposure, and Gamestop is an ideal force to make that happen. They have the money, the presence and the strong motivation. They can take to the press to discourage one console and promote another, for example. Yes, this is good news.
-
It's hard to cheer for Gamestop given the way they gouge people, but sometimes you have to pick your battles.
-
Lets not forget about letting your friends borrow your games or trading with them. If Sony doesn't follow suit, I could see them cleaning up.
-
So internet drama again! First Kotaku had a story up that said sources were claiming that always online requirement is still a thing for MS's next system. If there is no connection it will refuse to launch any game or app, and there is a 3 minute window if you lose connection while playing before it'll error out. But thats Kotaku and still technically rumor.
Buuuuut, now we have Microsoft Studios' creative director saying some really stupid shit on Twitter.
(https://i.minus.com/jF1Mjq5MZmVHd.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/OEY5yp8.jpg)
(https://i.minus.com/jbmJQEeF9tOY7R.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/VqoBBg0.png)
I'm sure PR is super pissed with him right now. Dude he was arguing with is a designer at Bioware. Does this lend any weight to the always online rumors? I dunno...
-
Yeah, it kinda does, doesn't it? What a dick.
I almost hope the rumors are true. It would make a decision on the next gen so much easier.
-
What a dick, indeed. He doesn't seem to understand that not all people have the luxury of seamless internet. Talk about a first-world whiner.
He keeps comparing internet access to electricity, which is much more widespread worldwide and can be generated independently when necessary if you have a generator (third-world living).
-
My internet has been up and down constantly for the past week and a half. It's ok in the afternoons, but at night and in the mornings it's either unresponsive or out completely. I'm near a decent sized city and on a major cable provider. (charter)
The devices we have now that are "always connected" are devices that are, by design, "burst use". By this I mean, you keep your phone on and get emails/texts/etc when it updates. If there's a 2 minute outage you may not even notice unless you're in the middle of a call. Home devices that are always connected are really more like, "connected when they can be" and don't 100% require a connection.
I still would be really surprised if the new Xbox 100% requires a connection. It's one of the worst things they could do to themselves, considering their direct competitor won't be doing it. It would be worse than blocking used games.
-
At this point, I have to think that MS is just allowing all the free publicity do its thing, even if a lot of it is negative. Then they'll come in with some announcement (in May, I assume) that gets everyone's attention, and which won't be quite as bad as everyone fears. It won't make any difference to me. My mind is completely made up on the subject. Any form of online tethering makes me go elsewhere for gaming. But enough people will still flock to them to let them get away with more than they should.
Edit:
Bahahaha! I'm still laughing my ass off.
-
Everybody already did on the last one. MS released a completely broken fucking product to the point where I know two people who went through more than 5 of the fucking things, and still everyone just omgzorz loves 360. People are stupid enough today that you can pretty much get away with absolutely anything as long as enough of your market is blinded by brand loyalty.
-
People didn't repurchase 360s because they are sheep, it's because they found enough value in the product to put up with the hardware issues.
I've only *bought* 2. I was on my third fat console (2 warranty exchanges) before I sold it and upgraded to the slim. So far I have had zero issues with the slim, nor do I expect to have any.
That being said, the always-online thing sucks. But it's inevitable. Sooner or later you won't be able to game on a console that isn't always-on. There's too much of an advantage to game publishers and hardware manufacturers.
Bottom line is that eventually we'll have to make a choice: Suck it up or stop gaming. I'm not quite sure where I stand.
-
As far as finding value in the Xbox 360, I only bought one console, and it's still working. Also, Xbox Live can be pretty cheap if you pay attention. I've been paying $1 a month for over a year.
I just checked my transaction history and in Feb 2011 I got 12 months with 2 free games for $35. From Feb 2012 forward I've been getting "$1 for 1 month" and "$2 for 2 months" dashboard deals. I just let it run out and revert to Silver, then dashboard deal shows up. I haven't spread the word on this too much because if too many people start doing it, MS will stop those deals.
-
@K-man:
Suck it up, stop gaming, or give up consoles entirely and switch back to PC, where control is always yours (legal or not). There's always my very hefty backlog of games I've passed on so far, which given my age, would probably serve me for the rest of my life if things got that bad for the future consumer.
I'm on my 3rd Xbox, my 2nd purchased. The one in between was a warranty replacement for my original, defectively designed Xenon system. It too was defectively designed; it too fried itself. At that point, my thoughts went along the same lines as yours. I had too much invested in the platform to walk away, but I wasn't about to put up with yet another crap warranty replacement with the same defective mainboard. So I bought a Jasper-chipset arcade unit for $200, and moved my HDD over to it. It's still going strong, outlasting both of my previous units combined.
-
Bottom line is that eventually we'll have to make a choice: Suck it up or stop gaming. I'm not quite sure where I stand.
Calling it a "choice" is being generous, depending on who you're talking about.
-
Calling it a "choice" is being generous, depending on who you're talking about.
You never know, this design decision we're complaining about may foster demand and subsequently some broadband penetration. It's actually not a stretch to think that design decisions like these could end up helping your cause in the long run.
-
I don't understand a bit of that. How is usurping the consumer's power in any way drive demand from the same consumer?
-
Idol is referencing not having a high-speed internet connection. The proliferation of devices that require an "always on" Internet connection could serve to drive up demand for broadband, thus increasing the chances of it finally making it to his area.
-
Pandora, Netflix, Youtube, all the new game streaming, online gaming is over a decade old, etc. Its not a demand problem, unfortunately.
-
Those are a tad different from what essentially will amount to a set-top box that Microsoft wants in every living room.
-
True but I don't think that will accelerate broadband penetration. There are a few of those streaming boxes on the market and even a lot of TVs have apps and Facebook and stuff built in.
I would love for it to help, but I don't think it will. Whats going to happen is people that *can't* use an always online device won't buy it, which is the opposite of demand. Plus I mean, Microsoft doesn't operate in a vacuum. Those people will buy a PS4 of WiiU instead. If anything, the PS4 would push up demand because rural people will buy it and want to use the share features.
-
What we need is for Heart of the Swarm to get REAL popular in the states.
-
Destructoid sums up the shitstorm (http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-man-on-always-online-console-deal-with-it--250855.phtml).
-
MS trying to play it cool. (http://majornelson.com/2013/04/05/official-statement-on-what-was-said-yesterday)
"We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers. We are very sorry if this offended anyone, however we have not made any announcements about our product roadmap, and have no further comment on this matter."
"Sorry you got offended, but we won't comment either way on the actual subject that has people riled up."
I wonder how much longer MS can hold out without announcing the new system. All these rumors and the always online thing has been a persistent one. Even if it turns out to not be true I can guarantee they are going to focus a lot on online functions just like Sony did, but they will have to spend a bunch on making sure people know those long standing rumors were false. As it is I guarantee every article and Q&A about the unveiling will have a question pertaining to always online.
-
I'd think that if the "online-only" rumor were false, Microsoft would have flat-out denied it by now.
-
I'd think that if the "online-only" rumor were false, Microsoft would have flat-out denied it by now.
Or maybe Microsoft is thinking of back-tracking and maybe removing it now...?
{thinks twice}
{laughs evilly}
Yeah, right! {Sarcasm laced in this line}
-
It's probably way too late for them to backtrack. They need whatever new services they are cooking up to be in a nearly done state to show soon, and there will be ones that make use of the always on connection if it was mandated.
-
Haha Francis IS MAD! haha ;D
As far as I'm concerned they're just making our choice for the next-gen consoles easier: not Xbox 720 (or whatever it's gonna be called). Of course Microsoft's cutthroat maneuvre will inevitably be with exclusives. They are good at getting those damn exclusives.
Even if the world completely shifts to a standard I'm not comfortable with I won't quit gaming; I'll just go back and play the massive backlog of awesome games I have yet to delve deeper into! Also, I will not yield on my regional restrictions campaign.
-
We'll see how well they can gather big exclusives if they have always online. Game development is expensive as hell so practically everything is cross platform now. To be exclusive to an always online Xbox would first cut you off from sales on all other platforms, plus you'd be dealing with the shortcoming of people with "lesser" internet connections not buying the system. I think the stat being thrown around is 15% of 360s sold have never once logged in to Live. That doesn't include the systems that have logged in at least once, like people that log in just to grab patches and system updates but otherwise might have issues with an always-on state. MS is looking at at least a 15% drop in userbase right out of the gate and chances are those numbers will slide on over to PS4. So...what kind of money would they need to offer to get an exclusive with that situation? What if your game design has no use for the connection in the first place?
Not saying they won't have exclusives but they will practically all have to come from MSs own studios.
-
Francis is a character, by the way. I'm not sure if you guys realize that. I found out the hard way back when he posted a video about D3.
-
Francis is a character, by the way. I'm not sure if you guys realize that. I found out the hard way back when he posted a video about D3.
I was crushed when I found out that FPS Russia isn't Russian. I've heard people talk about how bad his fake Russian accent is, but I never picked up on it. (guess I just haven't heard enough real Russians speak)
-
Francis is a character, by the way. I'm not sure if you guys realize that. I found out the hard way back when he posted a video about D3.
Here is is non-Francis take on the Xbox rumor.
-
So eloquent! haha
Seriously though, his message is clear and justified.
-
Idol is referencing not having a high-speed internet connection. The proliferation of devices that require an "always on" Internet connection could serve to drive up demand for broadband, thus increasing the chances of it finally making it to his area.
I think it's safe to say that demand for broadband peaked a long time ago and the lack of it in some rural areas is more of a supply-side problem stemming from providers not seeing it as viable (or rather profitable enough) to implement it in the area. Infastructure for dialup has been paid off multiple times over and the payoff schedule for the rural areas not already developed is apparently not worth it. The lack of consumer demand in this case isn't a lack of quantity demand - since a very high percenetage of those in the market would likely love to adopt, but a lack of total demand - because there simply aren't enough people in the market in these areas to make it worth it regardless. A demand-side incentive like an always-on console isn't going to have any effect on that, especially when the services Idol has mentioned has already caused consumer demand to pretty much peak. Chances are that these areas are only going to get broadband infiltration with supply-side incentives - like government subsidies.
The thing is that with Sony not jumping on board it's kind of a mistake for Microsoft. People stuck with the 360 for the most part because they were already invested in the ecosystem. You've had an xbox for three years and it breaks - you already have a subscription to live, you already have a bunch of games and digital downloads - you're a lot more likely to try your luck with Microsoft again rather than throwing it all out and having to start over with a PS3. The two consoles are pretty much interchangeable at this point though, especially for the majority of gamers who're really into the franchises that are cross-platform. With everything else being equal, a fair number of those may opt to go for the option that doesn't require a persistent connection.
By no means do I think a decision like this would spell the end for Microsoft, but I don't see how it would benefit them - especially when there are pretty viable alternatives to fight piracy (as Sony has managed to show this generation). Plus, I have no illusions that any sort of authentication will work as flawlessly as they'll tell us it will.
-
GPW's thoughts are well reasoned as always.
-
Microsoft planning Xbox event for May (http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/8/4195954/microsoft-planning-xbox-event-for-may)
Hopefully, we'll have an official answer soon.
-
The thing is that with Sony not jumping on board it's kind of a mistake for Microsoft. People stuck with the 360 for the most part because they were already invested in the ecosystem. You've had an xbox for three years and it breaks - you already have a subscription to live, you already have a bunch of games and digital downloads - you're a lot more likely to try your luck with Microsoft again rather than throwing it all out and having to start over with a PS3. The two consoles are pretty much interchangeable at this point though, especially for the majority of gamers who're really into the franchises that are cross-platform. With everything else being equal, a fair number of those may opt to go for the option that doesn't require a persistent connection.
This is exactly how I feel. I'll perform whatever maintenance I need to perform, in order to preserve my current choice of gaming environments. My next one is up for grabs. If this rumor turns out to be true then I'm painlessly switching to something else. I'll continue having the 360 plugged in, so it's not like I'm going to be giving it up. I'll still have all those games, and--hey--they work whether MS supports them with their future online service or not. Plus I'll have a new shiny Sony console, or a gaming PC, or whatever. It just won't be the neXtbox.
-
The lack of any sort of backwards compatibility (so far) makes being open-minded about the next generation that much easier.
-
Kotaku -> Adam Orth (who recently made the "always online" comments) is no longer w/ Microsoft. (http://kotaku.com/microsofts-adam-orth-the-always-on-tweeter-no-long-472244698?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow)
-
I was reading about this and was slightly surprised by a lot of the people who thought this was going too far/were acting almost as apologists. His comments were dumb, nowhere near as clever as he thought they were and obnoxious, but I don't think they were THAT bad....but he made them with his company name and title attached to the account. The second you attach your employer's name to yourself in a public outlet like that you're representing them and they pretty much have grounds for termination should your behavior not fall in line with what they'd like (barring certain rights-based exceptions). Most of the current complaints are of the nature that "The internet has no idea how well he performed, this was unjustified", which is partially true, but at the end of the day we kind of do know how well he performed. You don't let go of people who fucked up if they're still worth keeping. Apparently he wasn't.
And trust me, he didn't leave of his own volition. He may have been allowed to resign, but no one leaves of their own volition right at the same time where a google search of their name is coming up with a million positive hits of how they're causing their company a shit storm.
-
but he made them with his company name and title attached to the account.
This is enough. He should have known better, period.
-
It doesn't bother me one bit. He did it to himself. And this comes from someone who thinks wrongful termination should be a federal crime.
-
Had he not done it with a Microsoft title attached to his posts, I would have felt bad for him.
Still, if he was important enough I don't think he'd get fired or forcibly resigned for screwing up.
-
If he had been worth keeping he probably wouldn't have started the shitstorm in the first place.
-
If he had been worth keeping he probably wouldn't have started the shitstorm in the first place.
True, though he seems like the cocky sort :P
I hope this experience hasn't gone in vain for him and that he'll have a better perspective on life in general.
-
I'm also wondering if he broke some NDA about Durango just by even having a discussion about "Always online DRM"....
-
Oh CliffyB (http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/47725362941/deal-with-it), go fuck yourself.
-
I would bet money that without the always online elements of Diablo 3 that it would have sold half of that.
Bullshit!
As long as the game supported the campaign to be played either SP or MP at your own will - you know, like say Torchlight 2 and Diablo 2 actually does - D3 probably would've sold even more crazy number than it did at launch. Same probably could be said about SimCity 2013, as well.
You're alienating a lot of the worldwide fanbase who ain't got constant Net connections, by forgetting about them & ignoring them completing. I bet the rest of the world (i.e. Not-USA) ain't as connected as we are here.
Even my pretty good Net connection isn't always 100% reliable.
Nice to be able to run my PC and some of my SP games, when I bloody want to.
I don't want to even imagine what an "always online" console and/or "always online PC Operating System" would do to alienate its fanbase...
I think that'd be suicidal for a company to even attempt.
EDIT:
Isn't there a fair percentage of Console gamers on X360 not even on XBL?
-
My wife and I were discussing these issues this afternoon and she mentioned the example of “Hey what if I’m a gamer who wants to go to a cabin in the woods for a week and I don’t have online access there?” My response was “Unplugging entirely sometimes isn’t always a bad thing. And that’s the edge case…the week-long vacation to the cabin is only 30 hours of not playing a game or a device that’s built for much more.
I love this response someone posted.
CliffyB's wife: sometimes I am on a trip and play a videogame for entertainment for some period of time
CliffyB: it would be cool if you were not allowed to do that
Plus it's ignoring that for a fair number of people that isn't a vacation, that's their home.
-
Remember when Microsoft made the decision to only allow broadband on Xbox Live? It was a bold move back then; broadband penetration wasn’t anywhere near what it is now. And yet the march of progress continued. Sooner or later our government, or Google, or any number of providers are going to get their shit together and we’ll have universally fast internet for the majority of the first world.
Ummm....so, Cliffy's forgetting about the 3rd world? WTF?
{eyebrow raised}
-
Some of these people just seem to have completely forgotten the hierarchy of dependency. A device that requires an always-online connection is dependent on having a stable and relatively fast internet connection, not the other way around.
-
Hard to blame them, really. They're living in a world that has no need to acknowledge those people. They make money whether they do or not, and their primary demographic lies elsewhere. Just a shame seemingly all of them are too fucking stupid to understand that when it's pointed out to them.
-
Diablo 3, the poster child of a messy launch, is estimated to be at 12 million units. (Remember the internet rage over the art style shift? I barely do. But it seemed so important at the time!) I would bet money that without the always online elements of Diablo 3 that it would have sold half of that.
Absolutely. People bought the game because they couldn't pirate it.
I don't understand how this is bullshit.
Yes it sucked. It sucked because Blizzard wasn't prepared for it and people couldn't play the product they paid for. On that front, yes, the always online thing sucked massively.
But what he is saying is something unrelated. Would the game have sold half as well had it not had this restriction?
I doubt it.
Let's have a look at what PC game has come CLOSE to selling as well as Diablo 3 in the recent past. .
...how about nothing?
Except MMOS. And we all know what the common thread is. To play Diablo 3 or an MMO, you have to be online. Thus, these games are harder to pirate.
Look at Diablo 2, which was released in a healthier PC games climate, was better received by the community and critics... and sold FOUR MILLION. That's it! Think about it. D3 sold three times as much as D2 inspite of more problems, more hatred for the gameplay etc
edit:
I am not defending Blizzard. The servers sucked and the lag wasn't good. I am just saying that look at the lesson here. They introduce an always connected system, and the game sells far better than they could have ever imagined. People couldn't pirate it. It just means that this online thing isn't going away.
-
4 million units sold was a huge number in 2000.
Blizzard's fan base has grown a lot over the last decade so I think D3 would've sold just as well even if it didn't have the always online restriction. People wanted to be in on the action right from the start.
The problem for Blizzard now is that the franchise is in trouble and it'll take a lot of effort on their part to get people back to playing it should they release an expansion in the future.
-
Cliff totally failed at that thought experiment.
And I'd be seriously surprised if you couldn't pirate Diablo 3
-
It may have sold well, but 12 million is a number only boasted by multiplayer games. Yes, people wanted to be in on the action right from the start, and that's when these companies lose the most... they call it day one piracy.
I agree that it will take a lot of effort.
GPW,
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7112948/Diablo_III[PCDVD][Multi9][2012]
That's the only one I can find and it doesn't allow anyone to play the game very well. Some comments from people trying to pirate.
I will never pay for "single-player" content on a server, fuck Blizzard.
and everything dies, because Mana recharges so fast you never have to fight. Torchlight 1 was good, but 2 sucked monkey ass.
For those saying "Just buy D3". When all games have this bullshit server side content protection, it will because of pricks like you who PAID Blizzard for fucking us. Die screaming you cunts.
People should just stop trying to DL this, Has it been cracked?
Yes, Apparently Skidrow has cracked the Server problem and you can run your own server.
Is it worth it? No, because most of the content is server side, So until someone breaks into Blizzard servers and steals content, good luck on trying to play this game pirated.
Again, I am not for the always online thing to any degree. But I can see why companies are seeing these numbers and finding encouragement.
-
Just to play devils (Diablos?) advocate: Sure people would have pirated Diablo 3 and played singleplayer, but wouldn't they still need to buy a copy to play online? Can we say they wouldn't have sold just as much if there was an optional offline SP mode?
I mean Call of Duty posts huge numbers and can be played offline (and pirated to hell and back).
Also that 12 million number is probably artificially inflated. If you paid your WoW account for a full year then you got a "free" copy whether you wanted it or not, and I bet those all count toward that number.
-
It may have sold well, but 12 million is a number only boasted by multiplayer games. Yes, people wanted to be in on the action right from the start, and that's when these companies lose the most... they call it day one piracy.
I agree that it will take a lot of effort.
GPW,
http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7112948/Diablo_III[PCDVD][Multi9][2012]
That's the only one I can find and it doesn't allow anyone to play the game very well. Some comments from people trying to pirate.
Again, I am not for the always online thing to any degree. But I can see why companies are seeing these numbers and finding encouragement.
Don't you see how that's even worse for players than a simple online requirement? (Can't nest-quote on this board, as far as I know, and I don't feel like doing it by hand--I'm specifically referring to your last quote from that post.) You don't even have the entire game you paid for. Significant portions reside on someone else's system, and they have to choose to let you use them every time you want to play. Fuck that. I don't care what the justification is. It's a bad deal for buyers. As long as that fragmentation remains, the game can only exist while it gets active support from Blizzard. They control you, and eventually, they abandon you. Fuck them.
-
Just to play devils (Diablos?) advocate: Sure people would have pirated Diablo 3 and played singleplayer, but wouldn't they still need to buy a copy to play online? Can we say they wouldn't have sold just as much if there was an optional offline SP mode?
I mean Call of Duty posts huge numbers and can be played offline (and pirated to hell and back).
Also that 12 million number is probably artificially inflated. If you paid your WoW account for a full year then you got a "free" copy whether you wanted it or not, and I bet those all count toward that number.
I agree that they would have still have had to buy the game to play multiplayer... but right now they had to verify their account just to play singleplayer... which means no one was able to pirate this game. I am sure the number is inflated... but still...
Just look at the comments from TPB. People have gotten so frustrated with trying to play SP that they have given up.
Always on for singleplayer wasn't essential to the gameplay. I am saying it was DRM. And as far as Blizzard is concerned, it worked insanely well.
Call of Duty post large PC numbers but as far as I know, the best one sold a few million on the PC.
Let's look at games that sell consistently well, like MMOs. What do they all have in common with Diablo 3? An always on component where to even play the game alone you need to be connected to the server. It is all an excuse to verify your copy, really.
Don't you see how that's even worse for players than a simple online requirement? (Can't nest-quote on this board, as far as I know, and I don't feel like doing it by hand--I'm specifically referring to your last quote from that post.) You don't even have the entire game you paid for. Significant portions reside on someone else's system, and they have to choose to let you use them every time you want to play. Fuck that. I don't care what the justification is. It's a bad deal for buyers. As long as that fragmentation remains, the game can only exist while it gets active support from Blizzard. They control you, and eventually, they abandon you. Fuck them.
I am not saying I agree with this. I just think from a money perspective I can see why they are encouraged by the Diablo 3 experiment.
The whole always on requirement for SP was artificially created because it was all just DRM.
edit:
I just checked and CoD PC games have on average sold 1.5 million.
-
I am not saying I agree with this. I just think from a money perspective I can see why they are encouraged by the Diablo 3 experiment.
The thing is that part of the problem here for Microsoft is that they needed Sony to get on board with this, and they didn't. For sure, the DRM aspect of it is something that is beneficial to Microsoft and publishers, but turns off some consumers because of the headache involved. What portion of Microsoft's userbase that is remains to be seen.
With something like Diablo 3 (which I'm still really surprised isn't fully pirateable yet) you don't have a choice. With the PS4 and next Xbox most likely being interchangeable, people do. Microsoft is going to have to assess whether the increased sales from loss of piracy outweighs the decreased sales from those who just buy a PS4 instead. And that's not even mentioning the rumors of part of the online DRM disallowing used games from running. That would be extremely problematic.
-
Absolutely. I don't know how MS expect to do this with their main competitor selling a DRM free console. If you look at the comments under these news stories about the rumors, even the long time Xbox fanboys are cheering for Sony.
As for Diablo 3, the reason why it isn't piratable is because they've kept a lot of the singleplayer content of the game on their server. Obviously, there was no need to. It doesn't serve the game better no matter what PR bull they concoct. It was simply to create the always on DRM. Cleverly, they've kept only enough on their server to not stress themselves. The game is also coded cleverly so that some of the traditional server side content is actually handling on the gamer's machine, thus keeping latency down.
Playing from Pakistan where the connection sucks, on the European servers my game has been utterly smooth.
But yes..unless someone was to create a duplicate Blizzard server, playing the game fully offline is just not possible. Which sucks when you don't have internet.
But it so easily could have been a disaster.
Just look at the new Sim City!
edit: Seriously...doesn't MS see how Sony will outsell them? No one wants an always on XBOX when the PS4 will clearly be offline. I don't think MS are so dumb. I bet they have something up their sleeve.