By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Do on-line and Used check-ins mark the end of gaming?

PScollector on 23 May 2013

As much as I dislike it chances are it will become normal. Console gaming is changing and I fail to see how its for the better.



 

Check out my Youtube channel : http://www.youtube.com/user/ThePSXcollector

Around the Network
Skeeuk on 23 May 2013


this idea is pathetic it really is, this would mean as OP said the hadware company will see fit when you can play or not when servers go down etc

ie say goodbye to having a games collection even when future gens are out



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

disolitude on 23 May 2013
Zkuq said:
disolitude said:
This idea is overly dramatic and simply inaccurate.

Few things:

1. This has been the case for multiplayer games for the last 10 years. When SegaNet went down, so did most of the online MP games supported by the Dreamcast. Considering that more than 50% of gaming today is done with MP in mind, servers shutting down can indicate the end of that game as we like to play it. Even Halo 2 on XBL had a similar fate few years ago.

2. We don't know how this "online check once every 24 hours" works and what it applies to. People are still able to play single player games offline on Steam once its installed and authenticated on the internet. There is no reason to think Microsoft won't have a similar approach.

3. Even if the game is 100% dependant on servers and verification even for single player, Microsoft/Sony and anyone else implementing this DRM is looking for a major lawsuit if the game is shut down completely when the servers aren't available. At worst, if they are shutting down support for a game when it comes to server authentication, they are able to remove the limitation and allow the game to be played without authentication.

4. This type of a DRM and business model is designed for an ecosystem and long term gaming in mind. Thnk 4 generations down the road. There is no reason to think these games won't be playable on whatever x86 hardware is being used...X86 is the final frontier in computing so I doubt Microsoft and Sony will be changing platforms from here.

Essentially the only way a game library will become completely unplayable is if an ecosystem completely fails or a company goes out of business and can't support its ecosystem anymore.

1. It's always a known risk for multiplayer games and consumers accept that risk when they buy a game for its multiplayer. However, that is not the case with single-player games.

2. As far as the 24-hour check-in statement goes, it pretty much says you must connect to the internet every 24 hours to be able to play your games. What else could it mean?

3. The EULA most likely makes lawsuits extremely difficult.

4. Console gaming is facing enormous challenges right now, mostly because of smart phones and tablets. It's not at all clear that all, if any, console companies will be around say, 20 years from now, or even after this new gen. And backwards compatibility isn't that simple, either. There's a lot else to a system besides just an x86 processor, although it makes it much easier to make future consoles backwards compatible.

Most of your ponits here are well explained and I really can't say you are wrong in thinking future gaming will playout like this. There is really no way to know for sure until we cross that briddge...

In terms of the 24 hour check, Microsoft has said its one of the possible options they are looking at. Until the console is released and finalized, we can only presume the worst or best case scenario.

I for one think it would be dumb and unecessary for microsoft to request 24 hour verification if you've registered your game on a single console and only once. If you are registering a game one a friends console and then disconnecting it from the internet for offline play, while going over to your house and logging in to play the exact same game...I totally understand why they would request that you connect both consoles every 24 hours.

I think that people need to understand the challenges with digital and DRM before they start blasting Microsoft. The best case scenario here is to have Microsoft implement DRM that is going to allow you to play games on different consoles with the same ID, trade and sell used games and have single player aspects of the game work without an internet connection check-in, if you've only installed it once. This is better than any gaming DRM currently on the market by a wide margin. Compared to what Ubisoft and EA are doing on the PC, Microsoft DRM may be extremely generous.



Metallicube on 23 May 2013

Nah, but it will mark the end of MY gaming



NiKKoM on 23 May 2013

Nope.. Its a way to try saving gaming.. We can all whine and moan but the fact is that we ain't buying enough games for the right amount of money to maintain the level of quality we have right now.. The ROI are horrible for most companies.. You can see that in the yearly reports of them.. So accept this and keep the same high quality of games or don't accept this and enjoy less triple A quality games..

Looking at the budgets.. Why are games still at the Same retail prices of ten years ago? Its crazy.. I don't know any other industry where the retail price isn't adjusted to production costs..



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
noname2200 on 23 May 2013

It's close to PC gaming.



arcane_chaos on 23 May 2013

I personally think this will seriously hurt the gaming industry; sure people will cave when the right exclusives come out but I personally will not support a system which I have to be at the mercy of that particular company by checking within a time limit to the internet

just yesterday I had a discussion with another vgc user in another thread; both MS and Sony have roughy around 30 million users who have never connected their consoles to the web, now if MS(and possibly Sony) continue with this "must be connected within a time limit" then they will potentially loose roughly half their initail install base, and I will be buying a Wii U and just play my Vita/3DS/and my huge backlog of games from previous gens.

I might just be one of the minority but MS(and possibly Sony) have lost my money(oddly enough I would still play my Vita)



wvelting on 23 May 2013
mike_intellivision said:

I can understand the rationale. But you can't escape the consequences.

 

If you have to verify used games to play them -- then there will not be any value to old games once the servers are off-line.

If you have to check-in periodically (once a day) on line to play the system -- then there will not be any (much) value to old systems when the servers go off-line.

 

In other words, you no longer own your hardware or sofotware. You use it so long as the company sees fit to have servers running.

 

To me, if I am interepreting this correctly, it makes spending $400 or more on a lnog-term rental of a machine that will be useless (and have no disposal value) in 5 or 6 years a very questionable investment.

 

Mike from Morgantown

No, because at this point, we still have one true video game company that's still in business....Nintendo.  The haters can say what they want about Nintendo, but they're not some huge corporation that dabbles in video games....video games are all they do and they've made more money in the business than any other company ever has.



weaveworld on 23 May 2013
NintendoPie said:
weaveworld said:
People will get used to it.

Would be funny if something would happen to 'the internet' and ya'll had to go play outside for a change.

That doesn't seem backwards at all...

I also doubt people will really "get used to it" more like "have to deal with it."


Kind of the same thing to me.



Zkuq on 23 May 2013
NiKKoM said:
Nope.. Its a way to try saving gaming.. We can all whine and moan but the fact is that we ain't buying enough games for the right amount of money to maintain the level of quality we have right now.. The ROI are horrible for most companies.. You can see that in the yearly reports of them.. So accept this and keep the same high quality of games or don't accept this and enjoy less triple A quality games..

Looking at the budgets.. Why are games still at the Same retail prices of ten years ago? Its crazy.. I don't know any other industry where the retail price isn't adjusted to production costs..

The thing is, games cost a lot already and gamers have only so much money to spend on games. Trying to monetize the market won't suddenly increase that amount of money. I'm sure it'll increase that amount a bit but not I'm also sure it won't be very much, at least compared to the current situation. If games cost more, people will buy less games.

This isn't an issue of gamers not spending enough on games, this is an issue of publishers spending too much on developing and marketing games. Those marketing budgets are huge, even bigger than development budgets and even those are huge.