- Status
- Jul 7, 2008
- 21,258
- 2,403
- 85,890
What's this all about really..?? If its not some imaginable audience they're aiming for then I assume its either to make more money by investing less or/combined "Trying" to eliminate piracy?
If its the former then hoping it fails because I believe an always online to enjoy product model will continue to be forced down our throats. By reading peoples replies from all over the web, its just a bad idea and its definitely not they want to be left with. How would (edit; 'some' ) developers decide what is best for the customer? Some idiot taking a survey seeing the percentage playing online vs sales. Big number of those would have played the campaign first before taking any interest online.
Developers once upon a time just wanted to please their fans. Maybe game developers today are turning into what is now the commercial bullshit music industry we have now. Just NO talent left.
If its the former then hoping it fails because I believe an always online to enjoy product model will continue to be forced down our throats. By reading peoples replies from all over the web, its just a bad idea and its definitely not they want to be left with. How would (edit; 'some' ) developers decide what is best for the customer? Some idiot taking a survey seeing the percentage playing online vs sales. Big number of those would have played the campaign first before taking any interest online.
Developers once upon a time just wanted to please their fans. Maybe game developers today are turning into what is now the commercial bullshit music industry we have now. Just NO talent left.
Immoral Medic
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2010
- 73
- 0
- 18,640
shikamaru31789
Honorable
- Nov 23, 2012
- 274
- 0
- 10,780
Between the developers that want always online and the developers that want digital download only, I'm really starting to get annoyed. I have a 2.5 mbit/s connection that often has ping up to 400ms and the only faster option in my city costs alot more. And I'm one of the lucky ones living in a city with a population of about 20,000, there are country areas within 10 miles of me where the only high speed internet is expensive, high latency, satellite internet.
Soda-88
Distinguished
- Jun 8, 2011
- 1,086
- 0
- 19,460
Well, it's only natural that the developer who wants to go 'F2P' in next 5 years or something, to enforce online play where they can implement microtransaction system.
Either way, it won't happen (from most of the developers).
This comes to mind http://i.imgur.com/dZAvwB9.jpg
Either way, it won't happen (from most of the developers).
This comes to mind http://i.imgur.com/dZAvwB9.jpg
[citation][nom]MichaelSP[/nom]Ah brilliant. Another way to take games away from people whose internet is already to terrible for Steam to even launch successfully. I guess I'll be playing lots of older games for even longer then. Internet is not globally getting faster people! Yes, for some people but there are plenty of us without fast speeds![/citation]
There is a massive difference between being able to stream content and being able to log into a server to verify that you own content. The bandwidth required is even many times less in the short term. Really the demands is likely requires less then a 56k modem.
Honestly people have little to complain about
I personally play far cry 3. Logged into the system and started playing after login I capped my outbound and inbound speed from theubisoft domain to 33.6k basically modem speed through the early/mid 90s and never had a problem. Honestly as far as I am concerned people have nothing to complain about unless they can no longer pirate "said" title
There is a massive difference between being able to stream content and being able to log into a server to verify that you own content. The bandwidth required is even many times less in the short term. Really the demands is likely requires less then a 56k modem.
Honestly people have little to complain about
I personally play far cry 3. Logged into the system and started playing after login I capped my outbound and inbound speed from theubisoft domain to 33.6k basically modem speed through the early/mid 90s and never had a problem. Honestly as far as I am concerned people have nothing to complain about unless they can no longer pirate "said" title
killerclick
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2010
- 1,563
- 0
- 19,790
LemonMeringueTy
Distinguished
- Nov 27, 2010
- 27
- 0
- 18,530
stickmansam
Splendid
- Oct 30, 2011
- 3,719
- 0
- 23,460
battlecrymoderngearsolid
Honorable
- Sep 15, 2012
- 45
- 0
- 10,540
Cevat Yerli:Just saying this shit because Crysis 3 had a pretty short and unimpressive single player mode.
kinggraves
Distinguished
- May 14, 2010
- 951
- 0
- 19,010
Speak for yourself, I haven't grown used to having to pay for a game piece by piece only to pay more in the long run. I use my tablet to get all my web browsing done so I can come home and play real games that took more than a week to make. There will never be anything "free" about F2P. Games made on the cheap lack the quality of a game that took some money to make. You get what you pay for. Mobile gaming has not surpassed the realm of being 10 minute diversions on your smoke break. AAA "F2P" titles are never really free. In order to encourage sales, it is necessary to offer an advantage to paying players. Every F2P is by design pay to win, and you will pay far more in the long run than $60 to win because you're also paying for several people who will try it and leave without paying. Oh, and let's talk about Zynga's "success", how's that success doing now? Last I checked the company was falling apart. Remember how awesome the internet was to get into before that bubble popped?
Oh, right. Was this article about F2P or always online games/single player modes? It seems to hop around quite a bit, these are two different things. One is an economic model and the other is a social model. Here's the thing about online games. They don't work well for every single game. I read an article on Kotaku awhile back where the author was playing Final Fantasy Tactics and mentioned that game would not be able to be an online game. Certain builds and classes like the Calculator are incredibly OPed and gamebreaking. In a single player game, cheapness and cheating are no issue, you play how you want. In a game where you're online and socially connected, those things would be gamebreaking and unfair to others. You do not play an online game how YOU want, you play an online game how EVERYONE wants. Still don't get it? Watch the new SimCity, maybe you'll get it then. SimCity in the past was about cheating, fooling around, breaking the game, making things how you want. People did not play it because they aspired to be urban planners, they played it because they wanted to play around with virtual cityscapes. An online SimCity where everyone has to be equal strips away the God Mode and leaves you to be nothing but an urban planner. You won't be able to play God this time, because not everyone can be God.
Oh, right. Was this article about F2P or always online games/single player modes? It seems to hop around quite a bit, these are two different things. One is an economic model and the other is a social model. Here's the thing about online games. They don't work well for every single game. I read an article on Kotaku awhile back where the author was playing Final Fantasy Tactics and mentioned that game would not be able to be an online game. Certain builds and classes like the Calculator are incredibly OPed and gamebreaking. In a single player game, cheapness and cheating are no issue, you play how you want. In a game where you're online and socially connected, those things would be gamebreaking and unfair to others. You do not play an online game how YOU want, you play an online game how EVERYONE wants. Still don't get it? Watch the new SimCity, maybe you'll get it then. SimCity in the past was about cheating, fooling around, breaking the game, making things how you want. People did not play it because they aspired to be urban planners, they played it because they wanted to play around with virtual cityscapes. An online SimCity where everyone has to be equal strips away the God Mode and leaves you to be nothing but an urban planner. You won't be able to play God this time, because not everyone can be God.
KkKk-ZzOoNn
Guest
- Dec 31, 2001
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
K-zon,
Online is nice for its worth for, but on the interest of expense and also its place of interest to to find of such on would only probably place an interest within to probably have at a time for a means of regards to say for covering, otherwise any practical interest even within itself ownself it to say a debate of regards on if worth an interest of no question.
Free to Play is nice, but still at times for that of the bottomline to have or find within itself to say within a place of for such on is still to say that what of interest to find has none at all. Basically speaking, if you can't get something why would you?? Which at a time doesn't make sense of course, but still even say a financial interest "only" of the same still would say on the place within of to would probably be still on interest of what there is isn't to buy.
Almost would be like saying advertising or such alone is what actually takes an interest of acquirance to the regards of say a release and/or regards of interest within the same of or on to.
The article within itself ownself speaks on the interest of that of what might be placed to say you don't find for single player to say at a time for a worth of regards on to say at a time, spend 60 dollars to continue to spend 15. Just to say free-to-play on its interest within would then be placed for a regards of difference say still to find within the idea of a release placed better off on the idea of being closed rather the interest of expense is put within the part of or not for, given that rather the interest does or not the place of such for still has none for any at all.
Closed is probably practicall within its' place to find at a time, but rather to say the interest should maintain itself out on rather that is to be part of for not and to still say is is rather the regards is placed within its means of to say have for rather is put to on having about. Basically probably anyways.
The biggest debate there probably is to say at a time for a worth of is that of any release despite what it is, that its still the same as the one you had gotten before.
Its a weird debate given say all the digital downloading to find of at a time, but to still say rather or not is practical against the difference of what isn't, is still placed even on the debate of no closed, on saying even then when placed within say "network" "regards" of "interest" that closed even then is not left to its say place to find for what there has/is for what isn't its' place of be rather say at or not.
A good release is proabbly always the idea to find for one, one ratherly placed with the social interest of for to say find to have or not, but rather what has its place of open or closed to say is the difference still seems to come down to what is in it still for the idea of probably many things at a time.
The direction or idea of my post may not have some of the better interest within rather for say the two words of interest say intial, but for one to find without the other is probably still debateable for sometime and that of what would be either to find of for alone is to still say is wrong, and even put said might actually just be the worser of what there is. Still of such is that of there still probably being alot better interest of such to "find" then what there has to say "have" on regards for in terms of Crytek place of "practice" in terms of "releases".
Online is nice for its worth for, but on the interest of expense and also its place of interest to to find of such on would only probably place an interest within to probably have at a time for a means of regards to say for covering, otherwise any practical interest even within itself ownself it to say a debate of regards on if worth an interest of no question.
Free to Play is nice, but still at times for that of the bottomline to have or find within itself to say within a place of for such on is still to say that what of interest to find has none at all. Basically speaking, if you can't get something why would you?? Which at a time doesn't make sense of course, but still even say a financial interest "only" of the same still would say on the place within of to would probably be still on interest of what there is isn't to buy.
Almost would be like saying advertising or such alone is what actually takes an interest of acquirance to the regards of say a release and/or regards of interest within the same of or on to.
The article within itself ownself speaks on the interest of that of what might be placed to say you don't find for single player to say at a time for a worth of regards on to say at a time, spend 60 dollars to continue to spend 15. Just to say free-to-play on its interest within would then be placed for a regards of difference say still to find within the idea of a release placed better off on the idea of being closed rather the interest of expense is put within the part of or not for, given that rather the interest does or not the place of such for still has none for any at all.
Closed is probably practicall within its' place to find at a time, but rather to say the interest should maintain itself out on rather that is to be part of for not and to still say is is rather the regards is placed within its means of to say have for rather is put to on having about. Basically probably anyways.
The biggest debate there probably is to say at a time for a worth of is that of any release despite what it is, that its still the same as the one you had gotten before.
Its a weird debate given say all the digital downloading to find of at a time, but to still say rather or not is practical against the difference of what isn't, is still placed even on the debate of no closed, on saying even then when placed within say "network" "regards" of "interest" that closed even then is not left to its say place to find for what there has/is for what isn't its' place of be rather say at or not.
A good release is proabbly always the idea to find for one, one ratherly placed with the social interest of for to say find to have or not, but rather what has its place of open or closed to say is the difference still seems to come down to what is in it still for the idea of probably many things at a time.
The direction or idea of my post may not have some of the better interest within rather for say the two words of interest say intial, but for one to find without the other is probably still debateable for sometime and that of what would be either to find of for alone is to still say is wrong, and even put said might actually just be the worser of what there is. Still of such is that of there still probably being alot better interest of such to "find" then what there has to say "have" on regards for in terms of Crytek place of "practice" in terms of "releases".
Ponyface
Honorable
- Jan 23, 2013
- 217
- 0
- 10,760
I had crappy internet for years:- 1mbps was the best i could afford and that was only recently, and when i would read things like this, it really felt like a slap in my face. i have good internet now, but that's not the point. I am not condoning piracy, but i can see this driving many to it, even just on principal.
the only model i would POSSIBLY accept would be one similar to guild wars 2, where you pay the full price for the game, and get the whole game, but if you really love the game and want to show your appreciation you could buy cosmetic items etc, nothing that could give you any sort of edge (other than visually) in the game.
I also, however, get the feeling that change is coming to our gaming industry, whether we like it or not... don't get me wrong, i am not afraid of change, if the reason is to enhance our gaming experience, as I am sure most of you would agree, but these changes seem to be for one thing and one thing only :- to part us from more and more of our dollars.
the only model i would POSSIBLY accept would be one similar to guild wars 2, where you pay the full price for the game, and get the whole game, but if you really love the game and want to show your appreciation you could buy cosmetic items etc, nothing that could give you any sort of edge (other than visually) in the game.
I also, however, get the feeling that change is coming to our gaming industry, whether we like it or not... don't get me wrong, i am not afraid of change, if the reason is to enhance our gaming experience, as I am sure most of you would agree, but these changes seem to be for one thing and one thing only :- to part us from more and more of our dollars.
- Jul 24, 2006
- 22,810
- 258
- 57,490
Don't play with words and try to change the definition of single player. If you're incapable of making proper single player campaigns then just don't even bother trying. If I eventually become senile and want to play "social player" campaigns I'll buy a game that has them. Until then give me some Witcher any day.
FinneousPJ
Splendid
- Sep 7, 2011
- 4,977
- 10
- 23,160
[citation][nom]edogawa[/nom]No way......I'm sick of this social stuff being thrown in my face, sometimes I just want to sit back and play a game for fun alone by myself in peace and quiet. Single player is single player, don't try to fix what isn't broken.[/citation]
So true. I don't like the direction the industry is taking.
So true. I don't like the direction the industry is taking.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]edogawa[/nom]No way......I'm sick of this social stuff being thrown in my face, sometimes I just want to sit back and play a game for fun alone by myself in peace and quiet. Single player is single player, don't try to fix what isn't broken.[/citation]
AHMEN TO THIS !!!!
I'm tired of industry big wigs trying to tell us as GAMERS what should be popular for us. I chalk this up ther with worst game industry ideas right along side EA"s "Micro transactions in every game" crap.
NO i don't want to be nickeled and dimed on every game... and no i don't want to always have to play online.
AHMEN TO THIS !!!!
I'm tired of industry big wigs trying to tell us as GAMERS what should be popular for us. I chalk this up ther with worst game industry ideas right along side EA"s "Micro transactions in every game" crap.
NO i don't want to be nickeled and dimed on every game... and no i don't want to always have to play online.
LordConrad
Distinguished
- Jun 15, 2007
- 864
- 17
- 19,215
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Review Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Review: Intel Throws a Lateral with Arrow Lake- Started by Admin
- Replies: 238
-
-
-
Question LGA1851 with 2 x PCIe5.0 SSD support, without affecting GPU lanes.
- Started by MnsoonMally
- Replies: 6
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram