Try playing any online game (not just MMORPGs). I guarantee that it won't take long before you run into asshats that ruin your game experience in some way.
Is it a bad label? A stigma of some sorts? Absolutely! But that's what you get for being the jerk, the griefer, etc.
As for "class clowns", there are ways to be entertaining without ruining the game experience for people. Such a feedback system would, hopefully, separate those that we don't mind seeing (the silly "class clown" types) versus the asshole who thinks shooting their teammates in the back constantly is "funny".
That's why it's great to have a friends filter. I don't care about not being #1 in the world, since that's a damned hard thing to achieve. But I DO care about being #1 among all my friends (at least those on my list).
I highly doubt it'll be available on the PC. I mean, it only costs $5 in the Arcade. If it did come out for the PC, it'll instantly go to the bargain bin, and probably be more than $5 thanks the packaging and such. I doubt there will be a download edition either. Basically, Geometry Wars has become the "Halo" for the Live Arcade. It's exclusivity to that platform makes it yet-another-reason to pick up the 360. (And for some, it might be the ONLY reason to get the 360, but buying a $400 console for a $5 game doesn't make sense to me)
You make a good point, that was valid in the old Xbox Live days. But the Live service now has changed. The Silver Live accounts are free, and give you access to the marketplace, arcade, etc. The Gold accounts are not, though, but all they give you is the actual ability to play your games in multiplayer.
For some reason in WoW, even though the Horde generally has fewer players (sometimes the imbalance is as bad as 2:1), they typically do better than Alliance in Battlegrounds PvP (Warsong Gulch and Arathi Basin especially). I've always wondered if it's because they're a closer knit community, or because their faction benefits are better (Shaman > Paladin, racial abilities), or just get more practice (smaller queue time for BG).
Then again, in world-raid style PvP, Horde tend to have problems since there's no player cap, and that's when the population imbalance really becomes apparent.
If the Nintendo Revolution can provide a lot of the same functionality and ease-of-use, all for the low-low cost of $0, then more power to 'em. And I'll certainly be excited to try it out. I'm a bit skeptical though, since apparently the Nintendo DS experience isn't all that great. (I do have Animal Crossing DS and Mario Kart DS, but no WiFi, so I honestly haven't tried it myself. But the idea of having to enter in codes to join a game makes me shudder)
If it sucks big time, then I'm going to wish Nintendo offered SOME sort of pay alternative so I could at least get something comparable to Live.
As for gaming becoming expensive, that's certainly the case with this generation due to the apparent need for HDTV. But that's something a LOT of people are buying into, even if they're not gamers. I've heard on the radio that because of the upcoming Super Bowl XL, a ton of folks are picking up HDTVs just so they can watch the big game on them. HDTV has been, and will continue to be, the big electronic purchase that dominates households for the next few years. It seems a lot like the DVD player frenzy of a few years ago (although the hardware is certainly more expensive). Yeah, HDTV adoption is low still (anyone got any numbers?), but I'm guessing that won't be the case 2-3 years from now. Same with broadband access as well.
Releasing a network adaptor is certainly not the same thing as developing a network service, I hope you realize that.:)
Additionally, Sony's mantra regarding online games on the PS2 has for years been, "We let the game developers handle it". I find it hard to believe that they would constantly repeat that line, yet secretly be working on an online system in the background. Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is it likely? Not at all.
Now, we COULD see Sony send a lot of their developers currently working on Everquest and SW:Galaxies over to the console team, to quickly hash something together. But a lot of folks would argue that those games weren't exactly solid pieces of work either.
1) Last I checked, Sony was in the business of making game consoles and selling games. Not providing scientific and educational institutions with a way of getting cheap processing power. Sure, it's possible, but frankly not their focus.
2) They're going to take a loss on every console they sell, especially considering each one is going to have a costly Blu-ray player included now. They make back money on game licensing. If they have this SETI-online-like system, then it's going to be highly tempting to just buy a ton of PS3s together and link them like a Beowulf-cluster. Suddenly there goes thousands of PS3s sold to someone who's never going to purchase enough games to make a profit.
If Sony is really interested in distributed computing, then what they'll probably do is work with IBM to create a separate piece of hardware that does just that. And it'll be significantly more powerful than a PS3. Maybe they have that planned already, who knows? But it'd be a mistake to make it yet-another-thing-the-PS3-can-do-but-you-can't-nee -ner-neener.
I believe all of the added online features (leaderboards, voice chat, messaging) are optional or can be configured via preference settings. At worst, if you don't want them, just don't log in. However, a large number of people DO like some or all of the features that are being presented. Innovation comes when developers try out new functionality. Some of it becomes popular, some of it doesn't, and some are good but have issues (like voice chat with stupid people).
Free multiplayer is possible, obviously, since it's been done on the PC and on some consoles (like the PS2). Ultimately, though, there IS a cost associated with it... be it an online subscription, or things like "ad sponsorships" or fewer features, less security, etc.
Maybe the way to go is opposite what MS has done. Basic multiplayer gaming is free, but that's all you get. With an added subscription, NOW you get all the extra features like matchmaking, voice chat, leaderboards, achievements, no ads, better security (less hacks), etc. If you don't want it, then at least you've got the basic multiplayer system.
I have a feeling, though, that if such a system were implemented, you'd have the same number of people complaining that it should be the OTHER way around, or BOTH should be free.:)
FYI, the Silver account mode for Live has everything EXCEPT for actual multiplayer. Silver accounts are free. It's the Gold accounts that cost money. You're paying for the network connection (bandwidth), the servers that host the matchmaking, as well as any updates to the service in the future. And I'm sure some of the money goes back into R&D for future versions, or subsidizes the Silver accounts, or even (*gasp*) profit. I have no idea the pricing scheme for Nintendo or Sony, but I'm guessing they're going to have a similar scheme (or see reduced functionality).
Your complaint sounds a lot like those who hate the idea of paying monthly for MMOs. Sorry, that's just the cost of doing business. If there weren't people willing to pay for it, then yes, you'd have a lot more things that were just "free"... although the companies might be paid in other ways: more in-game advertising, higher per-box costs, higher console costs, forced to pay "micro-payments" for new weapons/armor, etc. Or just stuck with fewer features or even NO on-line functionality. (Arguably that's why Sony went with their original model in the first place. Many games don't appear to benefit much at all from online features, like single-player RPGs, so why have one in the first place?)
One final thing... you mention that you'd prefer more P2P-style implementation, which I gather you mean peer-to-peer. That's actually one thing I'd pay NOT to see. You just can't trust the client anymore. Arguably, P2P-multiplayer is what's killing many PC games. There's just way too many cheated clients out there, making play experience miserable. Are closed systems perfect? No, but it's certainly a lot harder to crack and the companies have a genuine interest in closing the holes as fast as possible, lest they lose their precious subscription business. Otherwise, bad developers could just say, "Oh well, we shipped the game. It's done. Sorry users, the griefers have ruined the game and we can't do anything about it now." Things like Punkbuster are great and all, but I'd rather just trust the server to do all the calculations, have the client "be dumb", and pay for it.
It actually is big news because for the longest time, Sony left it to all the game developers to develop all of the online features. The argument was that game developers WANTED to have finer control on all the implementation details. That was fine for large companies, like EA and Square-Enix, but obviously not so easy for smaller companies. (They want to make games, not re-invent the wheel with yet-another-implementation of authentication, leaderboards, in-game messaging, etc.) It also sucked for users, who now had to remember multiple usernames/passwords for multiple games, versus the nice single-login system with Live (and presumably Nintendo's system).
I'm guessing the fact that Nintendo revealed they were working on something similar (and you can already see some of the progress with wireless DS functionality in Mario Kart DS), really pushed Sony to do a complete 180 and claim they're going to have Live features, "AND MORE!!!!".
Personally, I'm doubtful they can really pull it off that quickly, if they truly intend on releasing this year. I'm guessing they'll just have some basic functionality, maybe an interesting feature or two that no one has yet (which I'm sure will be hyped plenty), but then miss a lot of the other stuff that Live does have. That will be "version 2", due out in 2007. Even if Sony is able to pull off the implementation (and yes, they DO have some online experience, thanks to Everquest and Star Wars: Galaxies), it's still a lot to expect from 3rd party companies to suddenly comply with whatever online API that they hack together in the next few months.
That said, it would be nice to have some online feature parity across all the consoles. It just drives more competition and (hopefully) good innovation.
No Hard Copy - While its great to be able to download the game whenever you want, this is a huge problem for people who like to sell their games when they move on to the next one. You can't sell your license to the download.
That's actually one big reason why game companies LIKE download-distribution methods like Steam. There was an earlier Slashdot article where publishers frustrated by second-hand game sales.
Now, Valve COULD implement a method where you could sell your license to download. They would just take in a percentage of your sale. However, they may lose out on potential revenue. Would they have made more money forcing the other person to buy a new copy? Maybe not, if the other person will ONLY buy the game if it's signficantly cheaper than retail. My guess is that companies won't want to take the risk, so we'll never see something like this in place. (Boo!)
Lockin - This is my biggest gripe with them. Valve has proven time and time again to be a greedy company. Why should I trust them with this system, especially when they have a lot of my personal details? Additionally, this system lets them begin the process of charging for every single thing they can. For example, you now need to pay for the full versions of DoD and NS. That would not have happened without Steam. In the future, I'm sure all the good mods will be sold through Steam, thus taking what was once done out of love by fans and given out for free to enhance value of the game (and drive core game sales!) and turning it into yet another money making tool rather than the 'added bonus' it used to be considered by the community. And if you think charging for mods is bad, wait until you head down the EA path and start adding additional weapons that are useable in the core game but only if you bought the expansion. Can you say "pay-to-upgrade weapons in FPS"? Yeah, not fun.
There ARE benefits to the lock-in system. Remember, physical media isn't foolproof. If you accidentally break or lose your media, and no longer have a receipt (or its long after the return period), then you're out of luck. But distribution systems have the possibility to remember your purchase forever (or as long as they last). The Xbox Live Arcade system is one good example. Your game downloads are tied to your account. Heck, you can even play it on your friends' 360. When you log out, though, it'll revert back to the trial version (which is very much a "viral" marketing move). I think that's pretty neat and a nice added feature, despite not owning actual physical media.
But I do understand a lot of the lock-in disadvantages, as you describe. Especially if the company goes down under or decides not to support their download scheme anymore. You can say MMOs have much the same problem. I'm sure there were a lot of unhappy Asheron's Call 2 players, when that game went south. *poof*
I agree, the FPS genre does look very tired. If that's all id plans on making, then they might have a problem... if it weren't for the fact that they make good money licensing their engine. DOOM 3 essentially felt like a tech demo and an advertisement for other companies to use THEIR engine. (However, that business is also getting to be quite crowded too, with Unreal and HL2:Source)
Hmm, could future MMOs use Carmack's next engine? That would certainly be interesting...
Yeah, I played X-2, and am ashamed enough to say that I did beat it. But I agree that it wasn't very good, and certainly paled in comparison to many of the other FF games.
I think the only reason why Square released X-2 in the first place, was that they needed another FF-game for those unwilling to dive into their FFXI MMO. (Me, for example) So X-2 was the bone they threw at us.
I'm looking forward to FFXII. The short demo I played (included with every copy of DQVIII, which is a must-have for Squeenix fans), was quite promising.
From your self-described gaming background, then yes, you should get the game.
I have it and am loving it. It's definately not for everyone though, since it's an "old-school" Japanese RPG. You may actually have to spend some time levelling up, and you may actually die a few times during the course of the game. While the story/plot are pretty cliche (as are all old school J-RPGs), it's still very well done and the voice acting is surprisingly good.
Those who love more open RPGs like KotOR, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate, etc. will probably hate DQVIII since it is very linear, by comparison. That's probably why DQVIII only sold 400k copies in the US, while it sold 4 million in Japan on the FIRST DAY.
Most reasonable folks won't argue that Blizzard owns WoW and they can enforce almost whatever they want. However, we're also free to argue that it's a bad response.
The problem I see is that the way Blizzard has chosen to enforce the policy basically boils down to a popularity contest. Yes, ANY recruitment based in part on political, religious, and sexual preferences is not allowed. But the problem comes down to the enforcement policy. Currently, it's based on whoever complains. Since Christianity is the religion of the majority, the chances of someone complaining about a Christian-friendly guild recruitment is going to be a lot smaller than, say, a Muslim-friendly guild recruitment. I know if I started an Asian-American friendly guild (but open to everyone), it's very likely someone's going to complain (especially with all the "CHINESE GOLD FARMER" racism that goes on). But an Australian-friendly guild recruitment would have no problem (and it's something I see quite regularly). In a popularity contest, any minority group is just going to lose. No, it's not quite racism/sexism/etc., but to the minorities, it certainly may *feel* like it.
I understand the problem that Blizzard faces. If they allow open recruitment, they're afraid that opens the door for things like KKK-friendly guilds, Nazi-guilds, etc. That would, obviously, generate a lot of anger and non-gaming related chatter on the general chat channels in the game. But you know, it's not like this is a never-seen-before problem. I think of my university and how there were plenty of religious, political, etc. groups that were advertised and talked about openly. Yet there weren't any KKK or Nazi groups to be afraid of.
I imagine all Blizzard needs is a clause that says, "Blizzard is allowed to moderate and stop any guild recruitment that it deems is offensive." Yes, I'm saying to keep it subjective! Blizzard can decide, by itself, what it finds as inappropriate. For the most part, this job should be easy. They can probably look at their own company policies and culture to see what's acceptable and what's not. I'm sure there are plenty of gay employees working in Blizzard, as well as plenty of people from minority religions, political groups, etc. And I would surprised if there was anyone at Blizzard that allied themselves with KKK or Nazi groups.
The only problem I see would be "gray area" groups, where it's not obvious that the organization would be offensive. One example might be a "Hamas-friendly" guild. But I'd argue the chances of that happening is slim (this IS a game after all, not a political forum), and besides, whatever Blizzard does in that case probably won't offend nearly the amount of people as, say, banning a GBLT group.
Obviously, whether it will succeed will depend on it's execution, not its potential. But right now, there are no reviews on execution, for obvious reasons. I've seen a lot of criticism of the controller, but not from people who actually tried it. It's actually expected to be the best FPS controller since the keyboard/mouse. As a huge fan of KotOR, I can say that the Rev controller would be much more ideal for that game than the XBox controller.
I'm confused. Knights of the Old Republic (KotOR) is an RPG, not an FPS. I'm not sure how the Revolution controller could be beneficial for RPGs, especially those that aren't in a first-person view. (KotOR, like many recent RPGs, use a 3rd-person "behind the back" view). If the left controller is used for movement, what would the motion-stick be used for? Using it to select menu options doesn't seem intuitive to me. RPGs are actually one genre that seems to make the least sense for the Revolution controller, unless someone can convince me otherwise. (I believe Nintendo already has plans on having a traditional-style controller anyway as a backup)
I do agree that the controller sounds great for FPS games. I'm a staunch mouse/keyboard user, so I find it difficult being limited to the two analog sticks with current consoles. I'm a little worried about sensitivity, but overall, the Revolution design just makes a lot of sense. I'm sure I'll have to try it in person before I can adamantly say it rocks or sucks though.
Okay, that makes sense then. The article just talks about "major franchies", and doesn't make the distinction between those made by the existing IP owner (like Blizzard and WoW), and those made by separate companies (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.). Or at least I missed it while skimming the article. I can definately see the differences there.
Okay, I read the article, expecting them to mention World of Warcraft at some point. It's based on some very popular IP, being the whole Warcraft universe (the subject of 3 RTS games already, and a number of novels). But they didn't. That's just a huge oversight.
Yeah, the Warcraft universe isn't comparable to Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, since they came from different media, but you can't argue that the Warcraft IP didn't exist or that it wasn't very popular. Yet Blizzard found a way to keep the lore intact AND build a hugely successful MMORPG at that.
Ok, I have not played WoW and I have no idea what a "40 man instance" or a "40-man raid zone" is. Can only 40 people occupy it at the same time? Are you facing imminent death unless you enter it with 40+ people? In the terms of WoW, what is an "instance" anyway?
40 man instance/raid-zone - A dungeon that has a max limit of 40 people in it at the same time, as part of the same group. You can't have more than 40 people in a raid. If you enter with less than 40 people, chances are you won't get very far... at least not to the end boss, and not without a lot of added risk.
Instance dungeons - I think it's easier to describe what it is NOT. Most areas of WoW (non-instanced) are shared. You can see what everyone else is doing, even if you're not a part of the same group. The advantage to this is that it seems more realistic. The disadvantage is that people are often fighting the same enemies, so you lose a lot of the epic feel. For example, imagine you're on a quest to kill a certain boss. But when you get to that area, you see several other random folks sitting there, trying to kill the same guy. That's not very realistic.
What instances do is create a copy of the dungeon that is usable only by you and your own group members. The whole area is yours. Game designers like it, since it allows them to better script the whole dungeon experience, without worrying if some other group happens to be there already. I believe the terminology "instance" partially comes from programming, where you can define a class and then an object is an instance of that class.
BTW, WoW is certainly not the only MMO to use instanced dungeons. Guild Wars, as a matter of fact, relies on it heavily. Other games (usually older MMOs like UO and EQ) didn't originally have instanced dungeons, so you had a lot of the "gee, we made it all the way to the boss and there are 5 other groups there now, I guess we need to wait in line" problems.
Hmm, I thought TFA explained the concepts pretty well, but I'll explain it again.
A typical "raid zone" (in the context of the article) signifies a dungeon that requires a massive number of people (usually 40) teamed up to beat it. There are several such dungeons in the game. Alternatively, there are other dungeons that can be beaten with a small group of 5, or even smaller.
The Eastern Plaguelands is just a location in the game. The Undercity is home to one of the WoW races, the Forsaken Undead. The wiki links have a lot more information about WoW locations in general, as well as game lore regarding them.
The problem is that there are a ton of guilds formed due to outside groupings and such. One big example are all the WoW guilds formed over web comics, such as PvP online'sPanda Attack guild or Penny Arcade'sKnights of Arcadia. I know there are other guilds formed from workplaces and even church groups.
So to say that the GLBT guild is not allowed because it breaks the role-playing experience is bunk.
I think both of us are relying on anecdotal experience. Most of my friends (myself included), had little to no interest in the original Xbox. Microsoft had no experience in the console business, so we were all in a "wait and see" attitude. This time around, it's actually different, and a few of my friends have actually gotten 360s at launch (or at least tried to).
I find it hard to believe there's LESS demand for the 360, now that Microsoft has proven themselves, in some degree. Certainly from reading all the gaming press (from game magazines to your popular webcomics), it seems like there's a lot more demand for the 360 than there ever was for the original Xbox. *shrugs*
I tried looking for actual launch numbers for the original console, but haven't been able to find it so far. That's probably the best way to compare releases and things like demand. If someone could find them, that would be helpful...
Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
So handhelds = vehicles now?:)
Your analogy doesn't apply for many reasons. In the portable space, there's (at the moment) only two real manufacturers: Nintendo and Sony. And the consumer typically only uses one product at a time. I know this is anecdotal, but I know very few people that own BOTH a DS and a PSP, and none of them actively use both. Most folks find what they like and then just stick to it. (Remember that these gamers are probably already buying games for their non-handheld consoles too!) Heck, you can even see that with the DS and the GBA SP. Once I got the DS, I don't actively look for GBA SP games anymore, even though the DS is compatible with its games.
Why would you split your userbase between the GB and DS? There's a few reasons why you would: 1) There are a lot of people that really like one platform, but not the other, or 2) There are a lot of people that will purchase both systems. For #1, I'd argue that this doesn't apply. Most GB users, when they get their hands on a DS, like what they see. Are there that many people that DON'T like the DS and will only get a GB? (Assuming things like price are relatively the same). As for #2, I honestly don't know. Certainly you've got a lot of people (like me), who owned a GBA SP but got a DS anyway to check it out. But I can honestly say that I'm hesitant on doing that again. Gaming is already expensive for me to now support yet another platform line.
Having multiple platforms is not only difficult for the consumer (who has to decide which one to choose, and do I want both?), but also for the developer. We already saw how it took a while for companies to learn how to utilize the DS touch-pad and dual-screens. If the next GB utilized yet another new control mechanism, then it just makes it even harder for developers. Then there's also the case of choosing which platform to support with your games. If I'm Capcom, the thought of now having to make TWO Mega Man games, one for the DS and one for the future GB (both of which have to make use of each platform's unique features, not be a simple port), is painful. Chances are, you're just going to develop for the platform that's more popular at the moment. Again, you can see that now, with most new games coming out for the DS and not the GBA SP.
Would the market support TWO Nintendo handhelds along with Sony's PSP? Probably, but honestly I think it's risky for Nintendo to spread themselves out like this. I think it'd be smarter for them to just focus on the DS and put whatever new features they want on THAT platform. I'd be more than happy to see them completely blow away the PSP.
Waddaya know, the AC is actually right! A simple Google search confirms that the Toy Story comparison was actually made by Gates, but for some reason, the press attributed it to Sony. Then apparently it took off from there and now everyone and their mother thinks it was Kutaragi that made the claim. (To be honest, though, that sounds much like something he WOULD say) Of course Sony did make a lot of claims about the PS2 power (like how it would replace the PC, but that's pretty common for most console makers to hype their platform). Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure not to use that "Toy Story" line again (or at least attribute it to the right company now).
As for trumped up claims of the Xbox power, I agree that there was a lot of stupid hype about it. It actually frustrated me quite a bit, when I joined the business. There were a lot of people (who didn't understand the games industry at the time), who believed that merely having a faster machine meant it was a better one. The only important numbers were how many polygons could be rendered, etc. Wrong.
"It's the games stupid!" I'm happy to see there's been some major progress in developing better titles for the 360 (no more Azurik please!) and getting some big-name 3rd party developers (welcome EA and Square!). Still a long way to go, but that's a much better approach than merely trumpeting up console statistics (which there's still lot of, but that's par for the course).
And now the big focus is on other platform features surrounding the game experience. Things like gamerscore and achievements are becoming extremely addicting, and the Live Arcade is becoming a big hit to publishers and gamers. Nintendo has already announced some similar plans, with their own online platform and downloadable library.
But as it stands now, all Sony appears to be trumpeting is two things: Cell, and Blu-ray. Both extremely costly, and I don't really see how much of a benefit they're going to be to gaming.
Slashdot Mirror
Try playing any online game (not just MMORPGs). I guarantee that it won't take long before you run into asshats that ruin your game experience in some way.
Is it a bad label? A stigma of some sorts? Absolutely! But that's what you get for being the jerk, the griefer, etc.
As for "class clowns", there are ways to be entertaining without ruining the game experience for people. Such a feedback system would, hopefully, separate those that we don't mind seeing (the silly "class clown" types) versus the asshole who thinks shooting their teammates in the back constantly is "funny".
That's why it's great to have a friends filter. I don't care about not being #1 in the world, since that's a damned hard thing to achieve. But I DO care about being #1 among all my friends (at least those on my list).
I highly doubt it'll be available on the PC. I mean, it only costs $5 in the Arcade. If it did come out for the PC, it'll instantly go to the bargain bin, and probably be more than $5 thanks the packaging and such. I doubt there will be a download edition either. Basically, Geometry Wars has become the "Halo" for the Live Arcade. It's exclusivity to that platform makes it yet-another-reason to pick up the 360. (And for some, it might be the ONLY reason to get the 360, but buying a $400 console for a $5 game doesn't make sense to me)
You make a good point, that was valid in the old Xbox Live days. But the Live service now has changed. The Silver Live accounts are free, and give you access to the marketplace, arcade, etc. The Gold accounts are not, though, but all they give you is the actual ability to play your games in multiplayer.
For some reason in WoW, even though the Horde generally has fewer players (sometimes the imbalance is as bad as 2:1), they typically do better than Alliance in Battlegrounds PvP (Warsong Gulch and Arathi Basin especially). I've always wondered if it's because they're a closer knit community, or because their faction benefits are better (Shaman > Paladin, racial abilities), or just get more practice (smaller queue time for BG).
Then again, in world-raid style PvP, Horde tend to have problems since there's no player cap, and that's when the population imbalance really becomes apparent.
If the Nintendo Revolution can provide a lot of the same functionality and ease-of-use, all for the low-low cost of $0, then more power to 'em. And I'll certainly be excited to try it out. I'm a bit skeptical though, since apparently the Nintendo DS experience isn't all that great. (I do have Animal Crossing DS and Mario Kart DS, but no WiFi, so I honestly haven't tried it myself. But the idea of having to enter in codes to join a game makes me shudder)
If it sucks big time, then I'm going to wish Nintendo offered SOME sort of pay alternative so I could at least get something comparable to Live.
As for gaming becoming expensive, that's certainly the case with this generation due to the apparent need for HDTV. But that's something a LOT of people are buying into, even if they're not gamers. I've heard on the radio that because of the upcoming Super Bowl XL, a ton of folks are picking up HDTVs just so they can watch the big game on them. HDTV has been, and will continue to be, the big electronic purchase that dominates households for the next few years. It seems a lot like the DVD player frenzy of a few years ago (although the hardware is certainly more expensive). Yeah, HDTV adoption is low still (anyone got any numbers?), but I'm guessing that won't be the case 2-3 years from now. Same with broadband access as well.
Releasing a network adaptor is certainly not the same thing as developing a network service, I hope you realize that. :)
Additionally, Sony's mantra regarding online games on the PS2 has for years been, "We let the game developers handle it". I find it hard to believe that they would constantly repeat that line, yet secretly be working on an online system in the background. Is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. Is it likely? Not at all.
Now, we COULD see Sony send a lot of their developers currently working on Everquest and SW:Galaxies over to the console team, to quickly hash something together. But a lot of folks would argue that those games weren't exactly solid pieces of work either.
1) Last I checked, Sony was in the business of making game consoles and selling games. Not providing scientific and educational institutions with a way of getting cheap processing power. Sure, it's possible, but frankly not their focus.
e -ner-neener.
2) They're going to take a loss on every console they sell, especially considering each one is going to have a costly Blu-ray player included now. They make back money on game licensing. If they have this SETI-online-like system, then it's going to be highly tempting to just buy a ton of PS3s together and link them like a Beowulf-cluster. Suddenly there goes thousands of PS3s sold to someone who's never going to purchase enough games to make a profit.
If Sony is really interested in distributed computing, then what they'll probably do is work with IBM to create a separate piece of hardware that does just that. And it'll be significantly more powerful than a PS3. Maybe they have that planned already, who knows? But it'd be a mistake to make it yet-another-thing-the-PS3-can-do-but-you-can't-ne
I believe all of the added online features (leaderboards, voice chat, messaging) are optional or can be configured via preference settings. At worst, if you don't want them, just don't log in. However, a large number of people DO like some or all of the features that are being presented. Innovation comes when developers try out new functionality. Some of it becomes popular, some of it doesn't, and some are good but have issues (like voice chat with stupid people).
... be it an online subscription, or things like "ad sponsorships" or fewer features, less security, etc.
:)
Free multiplayer is possible, obviously, since it's been done on the PC and on some consoles (like the PS2). Ultimately, though, there IS a cost associated with it
Maybe the way to go is opposite what MS has done. Basic multiplayer gaming is free, but that's all you get. With an added subscription, NOW you get all the extra features like matchmaking, voice chat, leaderboards, achievements, no ads, better security (less hacks), etc. If you don't want it, then at least you've got the basic multiplayer system.
I have a feeling, though, that if such a system were implemented, you'd have the same number of people complaining that it should be the OTHER way around, or BOTH should be free.
FYI, the Silver account mode for Live has everything EXCEPT for actual multiplayer. Silver accounts are free. It's the Gold accounts that cost money. You're paying for the network connection (bandwidth), the servers that host the matchmaking, as well as any updates to the service in the future. And I'm sure some of the money goes back into R&D for future versions, or subsidizes the Silver accounts, or even (*gasp*) profit. I have no idea the pricing scheme for Nintendo or Sony, but I'm guessing they're going to have a similar scheme (or see reduced functionality).
... although the companies might be paid in other ways: more in-game advertising, higher per-box costs, higher console costs, forced to pay "micro-payments" for new weapons/armor, etc. Or just stuck with fewer features or even NO on-line functionality. (Arguably that's why Sony went with their original model in the first place. Many games don't appear to benefit much at all from online features, like single-player RPGs, so why have one in the first place?)
... you mention that you'd prefer more P2P-style implementation, which I gather you mean peer-to-peer. That's actually one thing I'd pay NOT to see. You just can't trust the client anymore. Arguably, P2P-multiplayer is what's killing many PC games. There's just way too many cheated clients out there, making play experience miserable. Are closed systems perfect? No, but it's certainly a lot harder to crack and the companies have a genuine interest in closing the holes as fast as possible, lest they lose their precious subscription business. Otherwise, bad developers could just say, "Oh well, we shipped the game. It's done. Sorry users, the griefers have ruined the game and we can't do anything about it now." Things like Punkbuster are great and all, but I'd rather just trust the server to do all the calculations, have the client "be dumb", and pay for it.
Your complaint sounds a lot like those who hate the idea of paying monthly for MMOs. Sorry, that's just the cost of doing business. If there weren't people willing to pay for it, then yes, you'd have a lot more things that were just "free"
One final thing
It actually is big news because for the longest time, Sony left it to all the game developers to develop all of the online features. The argument was that game developers WANTED to have finer control on all the implementation details. That was fine for large companies, like EA and Square-Enix, but obviously not so easy for smaller companies. (They want to make games, not re-invent the wheel with yet-another-implementation of authentication, leaderboards, in-game messaging, etc.) It also sucked for users, who now had to remember multiple usernames/passwords for multiple games, versus the nice single-login system with Live (and presumably Nintendo's system).
I'm guessing the fact that Nintendo revealed they were working on something similar (and you can already see some of the progress with wireless DS functionality in Mario Kart DS), really pushed Sony to do a complete 180 and claim they're going to have Live features, "AND MORE!!!!".
Personally, I'm doubtful they can really pull it off that quickly, if they truly intend on releasing this year. I'm guessing they'll just have some basic functionality, maybe an interesting feature or two that no one has yet (which I'm sure will be hyped plenty), but then miss a lot of the other stuff that Live does have. That will be "version 2", due out in 2007. Even if Sony is able to pull off the implementation (and yes, they DO have some online experience, thanks to Everquest and Star Wars: Galaxies), it's still a lot to expect from 3rd party companies to suddenly comply with whatever online API that they hack together in the next few months.
That said, it would be nice to have some online feature parity across all the consoles. It just drives more competition and (hopefully) good innovation.
No Hard Copy - While its great to be able to download the game whenever you want, this is a huge problem for people who like to sell their games when they move on to the next one. You can't sell your license to the download.
That's actually one big reason why game companies LIKE download-distribution methods like Steam. There was an earlier Slashdot article where publishers frustrated by second-hand game sales.
Now, Valve COULD implement a method where you could sell your license to download. They would just take in a percentage of your sale. However, they may lose out on potential revenue. Would they have made more money forcing the other person to buy a new copy? Maybe not, if the other person will ONLY buy the game if it's signficantly cheaper than retail. My guess is that companies won't want to take the risk, so we'll never see something like this in place. (Boo!)
Lockin - This is my biggest gripe with them. Valve has proven time and time again to be a greedy company. Why should I trust them with this system, especially when they have a lot of my personal details? Additionally, this system lets them begin the process of charging for every single thing they can. For example, you now need to pay for the full versions of DoD and NS. That would not have happened without Steam. In the future, I'm sure all the good mods will be sold through Steam, thus taking what was once done out of love by fans and given out for free to enhance value of the game (and drive core game sales!) and turning it into yet another money making tool rather than the 'added bonus' it used to be considered by the community. And if you think charging for mods is bad, wait until you head down the EA path and start adding additional weapons that are useable in the core game but only if you bought the expansion. Can you say "pay-to-upgrade weapons in FPS"? Yeah, not fun.
There ARE benefits to the lock-in system. Remember, physical media isn't foolproof. If you accidentally break or lose your media, and no longer have a receipt (or its long after the return period), then you're out of luck. But distribution systems have the possibility to remember your purchase forever (or as long as they last). The Xbox Live Arcade system is one good example. Your game downloads are tied to your account. Heck, you can even play it on your friends' 360. When you log out, though, it'll revert back to the trial version (which is very much a "viral" marketing move). I think that's pretty neat and a nice added feature, despite not owning actual physical media.
But I do understand a lot of the lock-in disadvantages, as you describe. Especially if the company goes down under or decides not to support their download scheme anymore. You can say MMOs have much the same problem. I'm sure there were a lot of unhappy Asheron's Call 2 players, when that game went south. *poof*
I agree, the FPS genre does look very tired. If that's all id plans on making, then they might have a problem ... if it weren't for the fact that they make good money licensing their engine. DOOM 3 essentially felt like a tech demo and an advertisement for other companies to use THEIR engine. (However, that business is also getting to be quite crowded too, with Unreal and HL2:Source)
...
Hmm, could future MMOs use Carmack's next engine? That would certainly be interesting
Yeah, I played X-2, and am ashamed enough to say that I did beat it. But I agree that it wasn't very good, and certainly paled in comparison to many of the other FF games.
I think the only reason why Square released X-2 in the first place, was that they needed another FF-game for those unwilling to dive into their FFXI MMO. (Me, for example) So X-2 was the bone they threw at us.
I'm looking forward to FFXII. The short demo I played (included with every copy of DQVIII, which is a must-have for Squeenix fans), was quite promising.
From your self-described gaming background, then yes, you should get the game.
I have it and am loving it. It's definately not for everyone though, since it's an "old-school" Japanese RPG. You may actually have to spend some time levelling up, and you may actually die a few times during the course of the game. While the story/plot are pretty cliche (as are all old school J-RPGs), it's still very well done and the voice acting is surprisingly good.
Those who love more open RPGs like KotOR, Morrowind, Baldur's Gate, etc. will probably hate DQVIII since it is very linear, by comparison. That's probably why DQVIII only sold 400k copies in the US, while it sold 4 million in Japan on the FIRST DAY.
Most reasonable folks won't argue that Blizzard owns WoW and they can enforce almost whatever they want. However, we're also free to argue that it's a bad response.
The problem I see is that the way Blizzard has chosen to enforce the policy basically boils down to a popularity contest. Yes, ANY recruitment based in part on political, religious, and sexual preferences is not allowed. But the problem comes down to the enforcement policy. Currently, it's based on whoever complains. Since Christianity is the religion of the majority, the chances of someone complaining about a Christian-friendly guild recruitment is going to be a lot smaller than, say, a Muslim-friendly guild recruitment. I know if I started an Asian-American friendly guild (but open to everyone), it's very likely someone's going to complain (especially with all the "CHINESE GOLD FARMER" racism that goes on). But an Australian-friendly guild recruitment would have no problem (and it's something I see quite regularly). In a popularity contest, any minority group is just going to lose. No, it's not quite racism/sexism/etc., but to the minorities, it certainly may *feel* like it.
I understand the problem that Blizzard faces. If they allow open recruitment, they're afraid that opens the door for things like KKK-friendly guilds, Nazi-guilds, etc. That would, obviously, generate a lot of anger and non-gaming related chatter on the general chat channels in the game. But you know, it's not like this is a never-seen-before problem. I think of my university and how there were plenty of religious, political, etc. groups that were advertised and talked about openly. Yet there weren't any KKK or Nazi groups to be afraid of.
I imagine all Blizzard needs is a clause that says, "Blizzard is allowed to moderate and stop any guild recruitment that it deems is offensive." Yes, I'm saying to keep it subjective! Blizzard can decide, by itself, what it finds as inappropriate. For the most part, this job should be easy. They can probably look at their own company policies and culture to see what's acceptable and what's not. I'm sure there are plenty of gay employees working in Blizzard, as well as plenty of people from minority religions, political groups, etc. And I would surprised if there was anyone at Blizzard that allied themselves with KKK or Nazi groups.
The only problem I see would be "gray area" groups, where it's not obvious that the organization would be offensive. One example might be a "Hamas-friendly" guild. But I'd argue the chances of that happening is slim (this IS a game after all, not a political forum), and besides, whatever Blizzard does in that case probably won't offend nearly the amount of people as, say, banning a GBLT group.
Obviously, whether it will succeed will depend on it's execution, not its potential. But right now, there are no reviews on execution, for obvious reasons. I've seen a lot of criticism of the controller, but not from people who actually tried it. It's actually expected to be the best FPS controller since the keyboard/mouse. As a huge fan of KotOR, I can say that the Rev controller would be much more ideal for that game than the XBox controller.
I'm confused. Knights of the Old Republic (KotOR) is an RPG, not an FPS. I'm not sure how the Revolution controller could be beneficial for RPGs, especially those that aren't in a first-person view. (KotOR, like many recent RPGs, use a 3rd-person "behind the back" view). If the left controller is used for movement, what would the motion-stick be used for? Using it to select menu options doesn't seem intuitive to me. RPGs are actually one genre that seems to make the least sense for the Revolution controller, unless someone can convince me otherwise. (I believe Nintendo already has plans on having a traditional-style controller anyway as a backup)
I do agree that the controller sounds great for FPS games. I'm a staunch mouse/keyboard user, so I find it difficult being limited to the two analog sticks with current consoles. I'm a little worried about sensitivity, but overall, the Revolution design just makes a lot of sense. I'm sure I'll have to try it in person before I can adamantly say it rocks or sucks though.
Okay, that makes sense then. The article just talks about "major franchies", and doesn't make the distinction between those made by the existing IP owner (like Blizzard and WoW), and those made by separate companies (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.). Or at least I missed it while skimming the article. I can definately see the differences there.
Okay, I read the article, expecting them to mention World of Warcraft at some point. It's based on some very popular IP, being the whole Warcraft universe (the subject of 3 RTS games already, and a number of novels). But they didn't. That's just a huge oversight.
Yeah, the Warcraft universe isn't comparable to Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, since they came from different media, but you can't argue that the Warcraft IP didn't exist or that it wasn't very popular. Yet Blizzard found a way to keep the lore intact AND build a hugely successful MMORPG at that.
Ok, I have not played WoW and I have no idea what a "40 man instance" or a "40-man raid zone" is. Can only 40 people occupy it at the same time? Are you facing imminent death unless you enter it with 40+ people? In the terms of WoW, what is an "instance" anyway?
... at least not to the end boss, and not without a lot of added risk.
40 man instance/raid-zone - A dungeon that has a max limit of 40 people in it at the same time, as part of the same group. You can't have more than 40 people in a raid. If you enter with less than 40 people, chances are you won't get very far
Instance dungeons - I think it's easier to describe what it is NOT. Most areas of WoW (non-instanced) are shared. You can see what everyone else is doing, even if you're not a part of the same group. The advantage to this is that it seems more realistic. The disadvantage is that people are often fighting the same enemies, so you lose a lot of the epic feel. For example, imagine you're on a quest to kill a certain boss. But when you get to that area, you see several other random folks sitting there, trying to kill the same guy. That's not very realistic.
What instances do is create a copy of the dungeon that is usable only by you and your own group members. The whole area is yours. Game designers like it, since it allows them to better script the whole dungeon experience, without worrying if some other group happens to be there already. I believe the terminology "instance" partially comes from programming, where you can define a class and then an object is an instance of that class.
BTW, WoW is certainly not the only MMO to use instanced dungeons. Guild Wars, as a matter of fact, relies on it heavily. Other games (usually older MMOs like UO and EQ) didn't originally have instanced dungeons, so you had a lot of the "gee, we made it all the way to the boss and there are 5 other groups there now, I guess we need to wait in line" problems.
Hmm, I thought TFA explained the concepts pretty well, but I'll explain it again.
A typical "raid zone" (in the context of the article) signifies a dungeon that requires a massive number of people (usually 40) teamed up to beat it. There are several such dungeons in the game. Alternatively, there are other dungeons that can be beaten with a small group of 5, or even smaller.
The Eastern Plaguelands is just a location in the game. The Undercity is home to one of the WoW races, the Forsaken Undead. The wiki links have a lot more information about WoW locations in general, as well as game lore regarding them.
The problem is that there are a ton of guilds formed due to outside groupings and such. One big example are all the WoW guilds formed over web comics, such as PvP online's Panda Attack guild or Penny Arcade's Knights of Arcadia. I know there are other guilds formed from workplaces and even church groups.
So to say that the GLBT guild is not allowed because it breaks the role-playing experience is bunk.
I think both of us are relying on anecdotal experience. Most of my friends (myself included), had little to no interest in the original Xbox. Microsoft had no experience in the console business, so we were all in a "wait and see" attitude. This time around, it's actually different, and a few of my friends have actually gotten 360s at launch (or at least tried to).
...
I find it hard to believe there's LESS demand for the 360, now that Microsoft has proven themselves, in some degree. Certainly from reading all the gaming press (from game magazines to your popular web comics), it seems like there's a lot more demand for the 360 than there ever was for the original Xbox. *shrugs*
I tried looking for actual launch numbers for the original console, but haven't been able to find it so far. That's probably the best way to compare releases and things like demand. If someone could find them, that would be helpful
Very true. It's also silly to have so many branches of cars. SUVs, trucks, and small cars... it's all so confusing! They should just make one type of car so we wouldn't have to decide. After all, everybody has the same needs and budgets, right?
:)
So handhelds = vehicles now?
Your analogy doesn't apply for many reasons. In the portable space, there's (at the moment) only two real manufacturers: Nintendo and Sony. And the consumer typically only uses one product at a time. I know this is anecdotal, but I know very few people that own BOTH a DS and a PSP, and none of them actively use both. Most folks find what they like and then just stick to it. (Remember that these gamers are probably already buying games for their non-handheld consoles too!) Heck, you can even see that with the DS and the GBA SP. Once I got the DS, I don't actively look for GBA SP games anymore, even though the DS is compatible with its games.
Why would you split your userbase between the GB and DS? There's a few reasons why you would: 1) There are a lot of people that really like one platform, but not the other, or 2) There are a lot of people that will purchase both systems. For #1, I'd argue that this doesn't apply. Most GB users, when they get their hands on a DS, like what they see. Are there that many people that DON'T like the DS and will only get a GB? (Assuming things like price are relatively the same). As for #2, I honestly don't know. Certainly you've got a lot of people (like me), who owned a GBA SP but got a DS anyway to check it out. But I can honestly say that I'm hesitant on doing that again. Gaming is already expensive for me to now support yet another platform line.
Having multiple platforms is not only difficult for the consumer (who has to decide which one to choose, and do I want both?), but also for the developer. We already saw how it took a while for companies to learn how to utilize the DS touch-pad and dual-screens. If the next GB utilized yet another new control mechanism, then it just makes it even harder for developers. Then there's also the case of choosing which platform to support with your games. If I'm Capcom, the thought of now having to make TWO Mega Man games, one for the DS and one for the future GB (both of which have to make use of each platform's unique features, not be a simple port), is painful. Chances are, you're just going to develop for the platform that's more popular at the moment. Again, you can see that now, with most new games coming out for the DS and not the GBA SP.
Would the market support TWO Nintendo handhelds along with Sony's PSP? Probably, but honestly I think it's risky for Nintendo to spread themselves out like this. I think it'd be smarter for them to just focus on the DS and put whatever new features they want on THAT platform. I'd be more than happy to see them completely blow away the PSP.
Waddaya know, the AC is actually right! A simple Google search confirms that the Toy Story comparison was actually made by Gates, but for some reason, the press attributed it to Sony. Then apparently it took off from there and now everyone and their mother thinks it was Kutaragi that made the claim. (To be honest, though, that sounds much like something he WOULD say) Of course Sony did make a lot of claims about the PS2 power (like how it would replace the PC, but that's pretty common for most console makers to hype their platform). Anyway, thanks for pointing that out, I'll be sure not to use that "Toy Story" line again (or at least attribute it to the right company now).
As for trumped up claims of the Xbox power, I agree that there was a lot of stupid hype about it. It actually frustrated me quite a bit, when I joined the business. There were a lot of people (who didn't understand the games industry at the time), who believed that merely having a faster machine meant it was a better one. The only important numbers were how many polygons could be rendered, etc. Wrong.
"It's the games stupid!" I'm happy to see there's been some major progress in developing better titles for the 360 (no more Azurik please!) and getting some big-name 3rd party developers (welcome EA and Square!). Still a long way to go, but that's a much better approach than merely trumpeting up console statistics (which there's still lot of, but that's par for the course).
And now the big focus is on other platform features surrounding the game experience. Things like gamerscore and achievements are becoming extremely addicting, and the Live Arcade is becoming a big hit to publishers and gamers. Nintendo has already announced some similar plans, with their own online platform and downloadable library.
But as it stands now, all Sony appears to be trumpeting is two things: Cell, and Blu-ray. Both extremely costly, and I don't really see how much of a benefit they're going to be to gaming.