GI:Bleszinski believes that early adopters will be always-online anyways, and situations where a connection isn't available will become less common in the future or only comprise an almost-negligible number of edge cases.
**former Epic Games designer Cliff Bleszinski defended the idea of an always-online console as the future of gaming** this guy has no idea what the hell he's talking about if he think Always online is good for gaming
Don't forget that he also stood up for Micro-Extortions (oops, I mean Micro-Transactions). And defends EA. And makes brainless bro-dude massive-muscle-explosion games. He is the poster boy for every bad thing that the western world has brought to gaming.
Nah dude. Nothing wrong with a little Michael bay gaming plus show some respect...this guys game almost singlehandedly ruined many peoples education... hint hint "MULTI KILL" "ULTRA KILL" :)
True Story here.. I stopped gaming on the PC about 12 years ago as I simply couldn't keep up with the cost of upgrading specs and technicalities and what not. But I'v always, always love the Civilazation Series and was a bummed out when it Civilization V was PC exclusive, as I own Civilization 4 on the PS3 and play it til this day. So I bought civiliation 5 on for the PC on launch day and played it non-stop for a good 3 months or so, and after that I stopped playing for over a year. 3 days ago, I got a itch to play the game again, so I popped the disc in my new laptop, and it asked me to install Steam (which I did) and I'm getting ready to play, but it asked me for the Product Key... So I spent 2 hours digging through boxes to find the booklet with the product key. I finally found it, typed it in, and I get another error, "Duplicate Product Key". It turns out that I had an old steam account that I registered the game with, and when I try to retreive the old account, Steam is sending the info to an Old email address that is no longer active. So I filed out a report with Steam that very same night (April 9, 2013 at 10:13 PM). It is now April 12, and not single f**k was given to me with my problem.... I guess it's like Orth said, I'm supposed to simply "Deal With it". I paid $50.00 for the game, I pay $60/monthly for my internet connection, I have my subscription key, yet I can't play my f*cking game.... Now why the F*CK WOULD I WANT MORE OF THAT SH!T!?
@Cupid_Viper_3: but would you complain if you misplaced the disc? If you lost the disc, there is little chance you will get it back. However, if it is in an always online, it likely would have been saved to your account. If you could prove you own the account ,voila! Point is, you misplaced the login credentials and now cannot retrieve the old account is akin to you loosing the disc or key. I understand your plight, but there is drawbacks and benefits to both. Unfortunately, the world is moving towards always online. The same discussion was had when movies is going to streaming and music went to mp3s instead of cds. So deal with it! :D
@Donnieboi What a load of nonsense you've typed out. "And makes brainless bro-dude massive-muscle-explosion games. " Sorry, he made the seminal Unreal Tournament and the Gears of War games. What have you done? "He is the poster boy for every bad thing that the western world has brought to gaming. " How? He is an extremely talented and passionate developer and yes, his attitude riles some people up the wrong way, but the quality of his titles and understanding of the industry are testament to his abilities. I don't see Kojima hanging around with you. And on this particular point, he makes a lot of sense about the 'edge case' and the fact that early adopters will always be online, whether you like it or not. I know my devices are always online: * Xbox 360- auto connects to the internet * PS3-auto connects to the internet * My smartphone- always connected either via 3G or WiFi * Damn even my printer at work is constantly looking a WiFi connection!
@ nukeitall "but would you complain if you misplaced the disc? Point is, you misplaced the login credentials and now cannot retrieve the old account is akin to you loosing the disc or key." That's that same non-sensical argument that got Orth fired. I didn't lose my disc, I didn't lose the stupid "product key" either. Yet, I can't play a game I pay money for because, I changed my email address, and Steam is sending the retrieve info to a closed email account. So you're telling me that you're expecting not to able to play the next Halo game because you know longer use the same Xbox Live account? So your game disc just becomes a paperweight? And it's been 3 days now that I've been waiting to hear back from Steam Support, and nothing so far. "Point is, you misplaced the login credentials and now cannot retrieve the old account is akin to you loosing the disc or key" I really hope that the customer service rep don't say that to me. Because I will make eat the game disc along with the subscription key that are both sitting next to me as we speak.
@ donnieboi lol ...totally agree
@Cupid_Viper_3 Don't you think it's actually your fault that you can't get to your game? It's up to you to update your account and change email addresses if you choose to, you could have found out about it here - https://support.steampowere... Your account is tied to an email account for a good reason, for security and for your benefit. But now you're here complaining about Steam and their customer service when in actual fact it's because you didn't take care of your own account.
@ Technician Ted Thanks for the info bud, I click on the link and here are the first 3 steps. "Changing your email address in Steam is a simple process: 1. Right-click on the Steam icon in the System Tray and select Settings or press the Settings button in the Steam menu. ('Preferences' for the Mac client). 2.Press the Change contact email button. 3.Enter your Steam Account password along with your new email and click Next." You see, I didn't create a new Steam account just for the heck of it. I actually created a new Steam account because I FORGOT MY PASSWORD FOR THE OLD ONE! after not using Steam for over a year. Hence, I don't have a password to update my login info. Secondly, the email address with the old account no longer exist. So it's my fault that in order for me to play a mostly single player game, Buying the Game Disc from a store is not enough? I now also need all of my ducks to be in row and jump through hoops to play my game? How about kindly not make Steam a requirement for my game disc that I bought? No? Would it suddenly become very unsafe for me to just pop my game in and play? Anyways, 3 days and counting.... No answer from Steam Support, funny enough, that's the only PC game I've bought in the last 3 years, but I can't play it.
@nukeitall: "but would you complain if you misplaced the disc?" Tell me you didn't just say something that stupid. If he lost the disc, guess what, ANOTHER DISC WILL STILL LET HIM PLAY THE GAME! Now let's assume that he lost the disc and the console is always-online. So he gets another disc and guess what, he still can't play the game. And you're DEFENDING that? What the hell is wrong with you? @Technician For one, people forget passwords to old emails all the time, especially if you've made the email the very first time you ever used the internet and then couldn't use the internet again for a long time. Secondly, there should never be an instance where you can't play a game without an email address. The game should still function completely and Steam's requirements for email address for security reasons should be a completely separate thing. There literally is no defence for always-online.
Can anybody actually argue against the success of Diablo III? This is a numbers game and if Microsoft thinks they can survive then so be it. Lots of people were not happy about Diablo III and how it requires being online to function properly but it sold over 13 million copies on a platform plagued by piracy. World of Warcraft and Minecraft are also examples of games with great success with players who are online. Then take the number one franchise on consoles, Call of Duty. They too are always online aren't they? I'm not defending a system that requires online to work and if you read my previous comments on the subject I made it quite clear I'm not supportive of the idea. But let's try and look at it from a numbers game instead of all of this fear-mongering about how my connection sucks or I don't have access to the internet. Of course some people have very valid concerns but when you see companies like Netflix do extremely well then it's time to take a serious hard look at where exactly we are today. Playstation Plus is another service that excels when you are connected. The PS4 will have social features and a share button that will also benefit from staying connected. It's where the future lies and where the advancements are made to give consumers more features. Of course not everyone cares, of course people still love to play offline and play single player games but let's be real here, being connected is more popular than some people give credit to. It just seems like some people don't like being rational. They don't even want to think about an online requirement. We need to stop being so black and white and so bloody dramatic over everything. For every person whining about Call of Duty a thousand others go out and buy it. The forums don't represent success or failures. If that were the case Diablo III would have failed also. Disagree all you like but it's not going to change fact from fiction.
@MikeMeyers: There is no justification in locking out access to the basic function of a product you paid for behind an always-online requirement. None. And since you wanted to bring up numbers, let me direct you to Final Fantasy XIII. That game sold 6 million across 2 platforms because people THOUGHT it would be a good game. FFXIII-2 showed what people really thought. FFXIII was a TERRIBLE game. Diablo 3 sold so well because it was the first Diablo game in, what, 10 years? The core gamers are the ones that care about these anti-consumer habits, the casual market doesn't know the difference. But just because there is a market that doesn't care or doesn't know better is NOT a justification for forcing always-online requirement for the basic function of a console. That's just ridiculous.
@Cupid_Viper_3 That sounds like a Steam problem more than anything. All of your information should have been transferred to your new account. Or there should have been an easily accessible license transfer. But this is why it helps to pay a fee. Then a company is obligated to assist you more quickly. @nukeitall Always on isn't required for this. Just the connection to a screen name or account. Also Cupid, if the e-mail address isn't taken could you try to reactivate it? Unless it was attached to a job or a paid account.
DragonKnight, "There is no justification in locking out access to the basic function of a product you paid for behind an always-online requirement." There's no justification from our end but from their end it could alleviate piracy and help keep games updated. You act as though what their intent is illegal. Nobody is forcing you to sign a 3 year term for your cellphone either and they are trying to make illegal to lock a phone to a provider. Perhaps you should take Microsoft to court if these rumors are true. "And since you wanted to bring up numbers, let me direct you to Final Fantasy XIII. That game sold 6 million across 2 platforms because people THOUGHT it would be a good game." You're right, 2 platforms compared to a struggling market of the PC which is plagued by piracy. Not too many games on the PC sell 13 million copies that cost $60 a pop to buy anymore. "FFXIII-2 showed what people really thought. FFXIII was a TERRIBLE game. Diablo 3 sold so well because it was the first Diablo game in, what, 10 years? The core gamers are the ones that care about these anti-consumer habits, the casual market doesn't know the difference. But just because there is a market that doesn't care or doesn't know better is NOT a justification for forcing always-online requirement for the basic function of a console. That's just ridiculous." I agree, there isn't much justification but they are able to do as they wish. You don't have to buy Diablo III and you are certainly within your rights as a consumer to not buy the next Xbox (if it indeeds does require an always-on connection). What Microsoft must do is what they did back in 2002 when they decided to come out with a paid subscription model to play against others online and only allow broadband connections. Back then it too was a risk. Dial-up was still the more popular choice among those with internet access and we also heard arguments about how not everyone had access to broadband. On top of that many voiced their opinion about having to pay. Not only was Live a success it was Microsoft's driving force for their Xbox brand. If they decide to take another risk (even bigger IMO) they will have to show why people would accept less freedom and what they are giving us that is of a benefit to an always-on system. I'm not sure the upside is going to be better than the downsides. I saw the appeal back in 2002 for Live and to me it opened up my eyes to online gaming. Needless to say it will take a lot of convincing on Microsoft's part to win people over. Gaikai is another example of Sony pushing forward and getting consumers connected. Playstation Plus is another. Miiverse on the Wii U as well. People live in a social environment now and want access to streaming, having their games automatically update and so on. Does that justify forcing everyone to always be connected? No, but I could see why someone would want to venture there. The thing is it doesn't upset me like it obviously does to others. People are always so polarized and act like someone is being murdered. That's why we have other options out there and if the next Xbox has connection issues Microsoft will have to deal with the backlash. Life will go on with or without you as a consumer.
-There is still no justification. All online-DRM will do is force hackers to be more ingenious and work hard to stop it. Assassin's Creed 2 proved that to Ubisoft, and that's why they don't use always-online DRM anymore. No one forces me to sign a 3 year contract, but I can still have a working phone without one. This always-online DRM would stop the basic function and that's where the difference lies. -You missed the point. FF13 sold well because people expected a great game. FF13-2 sold 1/3 across the same platforms because people were not happy with FF13. Diablo 4, unless its release is in another decade, will suffer the same fate. PC is plagued by piracy, but it's also filled with smart consumers who will support a good game and developers who understand that draconian and highly restrictive DRM is the problem, not the solution. -You're forgetting something important. Precedent. Just because I don't buy anything with such restrictive DRM doesn't mean the problem goes away. One success is all it takes for ignorant businessmen to deem that the DRM is necessary for their bottom line and then the problem shifts from one or two games and one console to absolutely everything save for a few who still recognize that it's wrong to lock out basic function behind such a pay wall. Try to come up with a scenario in which that is beneficial to quality gaming that core gamers can truly get behind. -Back then MS had no choice but to charge for Live. They needed the funds to build it up and they had a monopoly on console online gaming (Dreamcast and PS2 online shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence). As gaming evolved, the reason to charge for Live kept growing smaller and smaller to the point where there is no legitimate reason to charge for what everyone else gets for free. There is literally no good that can come from these practices. None. When it's shown that you can get the same service or better for less or free, no one can come up with a legitimate and believable counter-statement. -Gaikai, PS Plus, and Miiverse are all optional. They in no way hinder the basic functions of the PS3/PS4 or Wii U. This is why on a fundamental level they are superior to this rumoured always-online console of Microsoft's. MS has successfully suckered almost 50 million people into believing they need to pay for Live, they are definitely not above attempting to sucker just as many people into believing they need to have always-online DRM. -People are polarized and upset because of what CAN happen. Sure, they don't have to buy the new Xbox, but what if Sony, Nintendo, and countless PC devs start to feel the same as MS? What if then the indie devs and mobile devs start to feel the same too? Is there any good reason, any benefit, in FORCING people to have an internet connection to play a single player game or even to start up a console? No. There isn't.
"You're forgetting something important. Precedent. Just because I don't buy anything with such restrictive DRM doesn't mean the problem goes away." Neither does piracy or the used game market but publishers will still try and do something to battle it. To this day nobody has found a good workaround to Diablo III through piracy. What benefit is there to having online passes? All of Sony 1st party games now have them. EA games have them. Again, I'm not supporting an always-on online system, I am just trying to explain why they may want to go this route. "Back then MS had no choice but to charge for Live. They needed the funds to build it up and they had a monopoly on console online gaming (Dreamcast and PS2 online shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence)." What a dumb thing to say, of course Microsoft had a choice just like Sony had a choice with the PS3. How can they have a monopoly of online gaming if anyone else could do it and they were just entering into it? Why would a multi-billion dollar company need the funds more than the other two? It was a risk and Microsoft proved people were willing to pay for what some considered a service worth paying for. It's an endless debate on whether you or I think it's worth it or not but the fact remains, they charge because they can, not because they are forced to. "Gaikai, PS Plus, and Miiverse are all optional. They in no way hinder the basic functions of the PS3/PS4 or Wii U. " Where did I sate they weren't optional? The point is consoles have greater benefits by being connected, just like your ipad and just like your cellphone. I agree, it's nice having that option but the people nowadays like being connected for various reasons, to search the web, to activate social functions, to play online, to access apps and media, to download items and many other things. One day technology will push to the point that those who aren't connected will be left behind. Perhaps the next Xbox will try and set that precedent. For every person ranting and raving about this there are probably 100 people who don't care. At the end of the day the consumer will decide if there is enough demand to warrant such a drastic change. That is of course if Microsoft is willing to take such risks. Here is a quote from the article: "Technology doesn't advance by worrying about the edge case." Do you know what he meant by that? Do you think Netflix cares about people who don't have internet access? We have millions of people playing Call of Duty online, that's just one game. Whoever decides to be the first to have a system that requires an always online to function will soon find out just how large of a userbase exists out there. A big problem facing Microsoft is they may be going solo on this. Which means they will have to convince potential consumers the benefits of doing it just like they showed consumers back in 2002 why they ought to pay to play online.
-Why bother explaining why they may go this route? Everyone knows why they may, that's not the point. The point is that it's wrong. Playing Devil's Advocate only strengthens bad decisions. -Are you really that retarded? Sega and Sony dropped support for the Dreamcast and PS2's online respectively. MS was taking a HUGE risk in providing robust online gaming to consoles. Why WOULDN'T they need funds to build it up? You're talking about something that would have a sustained cost over a significant time back when no one else was doing what MS was doing. You seriously are blind. MS aren't forced to charge for Live now, but back then they'd have been fools to take on its cost entirely on their own. The original Xbox's life span was cut short because of costs, no charge for Live would have made it even shorter. Seriously, that's not very complicated to understand. -*facepalm* I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. There is a difference between CHOOSING to have your console connected and knowing it will still be able to perform its BASIC FUNCTION without a connection, and being FORCED to have your console connected because it will NOT be able to perform its basic function if you don't. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! -Get lost with your Cliffy B quote. That guy is a moron that defends the worst practices because he is pro-greed and I won't dignify your statement based on his with a rebuttal.
"Dreamcast and PS2's online respectively. MS was taking a HUGE risk in providing robust online gaming to consoles. Why WOULDN'T they need funds to build it up?" And yet Ninetndo built Miiverse, Valve built Steam and Sony created Home and have basically caught up to many of Live's features, all being provided for free. So how can they fund it but Microsoft and all of their billions of dollars can't? Strawman argument. "I can't believe I have to explain this to you again. There is a difference between CHOOSING to have your console connected and knowing it will still be able to perform its BASIC FUNCTION without a connection, and being FORCED to have your console connected because it will NOT be able to perform its basic function if you don't. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!" Yes I understand perfectly, it's still a choice because you don't have to buy anything that may require an always-on connection. Some won't care but you do. That's called a choice. Just like it's a consumers choice to subscribe to Netflix or buy their own movies. That's called a choice. It's also a choice to pay for internet access for your computer and gaming consoles and anything else that may use it. "-Get lost with your Cliffy B quote. That guy is a moron that defends the worst practices because he is pro-greed and I won't dignify your statement based on his with a rebuttal." Of course not because you fail to support the notion many products and millions of consumers are already part of the always-on activities in their daily lives. That is what he was getting at and if Microsoft (or any other company) wants to risk relying on people being connected that is their choice just like it's your choice to buy it or not. DragonKnight also refuses to even discuss online passes and how that benefits the consumer.
I heard he has become popular amongs the gay scene...he's now become apparently the biggest gay porn star ever!
US just isn't built for always online. I shouldn't have to move from where I live to just get decent internet service just so I'm not blockade by always online feature. Sadly these so called "edge-case" isn't something that just affect a small few Americans, its something that affect a lot of us. Personally I don't think there's way to make always online enticing enough or at all to consumers. How does it benefit us? Sadly I do have agree with about always online is coming. When games like SimCity and Diablo 3 sell at a high rate regardless having a feature like always online, its sending a message to companies.
Games that people couldn't return sold well? Who knew? It seems that the games sold well ib spote of their drm fhoices. I still maintain that if Diablo 3 were a proper sequel, we'd be seeing record after record shattered.. instead, the game merely did extrenely well, but didn't break any records of note.
Games in general aren't returnable.... Not anywhere I lived at least.
Cliffy B needs to name ONE benefit to consumers that requiring an internet connection to play games offers. Just ONE benefit. I'm waiting.
They will come up with something, just wait. They will offer you great things but you will be able to enjoy it only if you are online. And then it's only a small step for you to be always online. A example, are you familiar with ps+, people love it, just imagine that ps+ on ps4 is offering even more, but you have to be always online. It won't happen over night, but slowly, by the end of the next generation no one will care anymore. Just like this gen with online passes and dlc, nobody cares about them anymore.
We'll see how well the next Diablo & Sim City sell, I suspect significantly lower numbers.
Sounds like he doesn't understand the issue people have with always online. The Xbox rumors illustrate it perfectly. If the next Xbox uses "always online" to create a better experience, but doesn't needlessly force it upon you, that's great. Nobody's going to have a problem with that. The issue is when "always online" turns into "always online... even when you don't have to be", like some of the rumors suggest. It's the idea that you wouldn't be able to do anything... play single player, watch a DVD, listen to music, or whatever it may be, without a connection, which obviously isn't a necessity for any of those things. For any of those things, "always on" is nothing more than an artificial roadblock that nobody should have to put up with. The thought of not being able to simply use features that aren't dependent on a connection is what bothers people. There's no problem with "always on" features that add value, where there is a true need for the connection. The problem, is when that requirement becomes nothing more than an unecessary roadblock and starts lowering the value of a product. That dope Adam Orth said "Sometimes the electricity goes out. I will not purchase a vacuum cleaner." A vacuum needs electricity for basic functionality. It's expected, and understandable that it won't work without electricity. There isn't one person dumb enough on this planet to expect a vacuum to work without electricity. The problem people have, is when Home Depot starts selling brooms that require electricity. Sure, we all have electricity, and the times when we don't have it are just "edge cases", but there's no reason we need to have electricity for a freakin' broom in the first place. If there is no reason for that "edge case" to exist, nobody should have to "deal with it".
Cliffy B says that "always online benefits gamers." I'd like him to name just ONE of these supposed "benefits." How does being forced to connect to the internet to play a single-player game "benefit" the consumer in any way?
History advances not worrying about the edge celebrities.
Here is the thing Cliffy, consoles benefit from an online conection. But they dont NEED it and never will. These idiots are defending whats ilogical, this is the equivalent of your car not working if it doesnt have a music radio.
Why is this news? Cliffy isn't a game developer.
Another corporate friendly kiss ass statement from Cliffy huh? Well, at least it's now clear which side of the fence he is on when it comes to gamer's issues. Anything uttered by this clown can now officially be ignored.
Technology shouldn't advance by forcing things people don't want in the first place.
And Cliff, your opinion matters why again?
....that man tries to associate with Kojima too....I hope Kojima san doesnt get anything from him...
Great points, obviously the difference is that he can articulate himself properly while Orth just came across as obnoxious (albeit in tweets). By the way, how about this comment re: Cliff leaving Epic? "I’m going to let you in on a little secret. When someone leaves a company there’s what publicly is stated and there’s what really happened. And you’re likely to never, ever know it."
He prob fog fired for making dumb statements like this one.
I cant wait to play tesvi and get to the end of a dungeon/cave then a message pops up saying sorry disconnected from xbox live please try again later.
Damage control Damage Control, I am guessing he will be working at EA...
I can't believe this guy is defending things that gamers hate, Microtransactions and Always online. Hideo Kojima should choose his friends more carefully
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.