Polygon: ''Far Cry 3, Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag, The Crew, Watch Dogs, Tom Clancy's The Division: Ubisoft's slate of recent and upcoming games increasingly seem to have one thing in common: Open worlds.''
If Ubisoft's always online games sell you can bet more publishers implement the same requirement in their titles.
it's just inevitable that the progression to an always online model is where things are heading. Paranoia aside, there is the potential for more benefit to a connected world of entertainment than offline.
There is a benefit to being always online. We are just not there yet. Connection drops, poor connections..... stop always online games in their tracks. Once IPs improve the networks around the world and routers don't drop you then these games will work very well. We are just not there....yet
you should just be able to update the game data from the servers when you login to your account instead of having to be online 24/7.
It is inevitable that the universe will end. It is inevitable that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is inevitable that some day, all of us who post on this forum will die. What is not inevitable is human progression, and how the games industry progresses as a result. If we don't want multiplayer games we don't buy them, and the industry changes tune. Businesses adapt to consumer demands, and not the other way around. We all need to start taking responsibility and purchasing games which we want to see more of; games which utilise practices we support.
"We are just not there yet." I agree superman. Throughout the years there have been attempts at changing the scope of things we are used to. some failed and some succeeded. the ones that succeeded are those who are backed by names people trust. We are not there yet because it is the general perception that the right company has not come forward to really make the argument that people will stand behind. A (bad) analogy would be the digital music craze. before the ipod there were numerous players and ways to obtain digital music. But there lacked a real structure to organize things and make it all work cohesively. Napster takes the fall for music sharing but from that fall comes the structure and organization of Apple to convince the masses their way is the ideal solution. So we got the itunes and ipod and the rest is history. Maybe it was apple and their timing to do what they did but from that moment changed the music landscape and has evolved to encompass movies and tv and other forms of digital entertainment. would the same results have happened if it was MS or Sony or (insert giant media corp here)? We dont know because it was Apple that started that revolution. Will there be a company that really drives home the idea of an always connected, always ready, always online echosystem? Eventually but now (like you said) there are bumps in the road that make the "always" part of that saying uncertain. We will get there one day and when that day comes we will have the right company telling us why and we will likely see their POV and agree.
Why are you getting disagrees? It IS inevitable folks, he's not saying it's happening tomorrow, it's just going to happen eventually. It's the next step, and it's going to start with single games this generation, and the next generation we'll likely see it in consoles, without the back peddling.
Funny this article comes out as MAG servers are being announced to shut down. Always online (no offline modes) are useless without servers. So many people wasted $60 on a disk that will be rendered useless next month.
That is another big problem. I do hate how games are shut down or gimped so you by the next one. FIFA is a perfect example of this. The squad update stops when the new game comes out. It shouldn't do that but it does
that is exactly why I don't buy online only games, if there is no campaign it's a no buy for me.
The only thing I like is since your always connected they can push out updates faster and possibly in real time. The downside is basically what @Superman said. Internet doesn't need a reason to go out, it just does. And at any given moment, randomly. I don't want to play a game where I get all this badass equipment/weapons only for my net to go down and lose all my stuff. Best believe I won't pop in that game anytime soon.
Certain games would be awesome "always online" but others just aren't as fun that way. Why do they always want to do one or the other? Because it's easier to control one than many. They need to realize we like and want many many many options all the time.
I haven't gotten into an online game since Mechwarrior 4.
I honestly don't get why you'd get a disagree on this. Do they think you're lying or something?
I'm playing mechwarrior online, I definitely recommend it if you have a computer that can play it
Yeah I stopped mp after MW1. That said, if The Division turns out like it seems like its going to then I will jump back in. Also, spy vs mercs coming back to Splinter Cell has me very, very excited.
"Why Ubisoft Thinks Gamers Will Want Always Online Games." We don't. You just want more control/money. Don't try to put that on gamers when it's all about what you want Ubisoft.
Ubisoft is wrong on this one, i do not want to be playing always online thats of no full benifit to me as a 95% single player gamer i dont play multiplayer that much anyways and if i do its only on certain titles most of the time and frankly thats a waste of data cap for me
I enjoy Online gaming but I want to know that my single player offline will be safe as I doubt when Skynet takes over I'll be able to login to any game servers.
I dont even like to play online. Single player!!
+1 I've never had a multiplayer game touch me in the same way many single-player experiences have done. If the games industry is to ever become focused on deep artistic works which move us then we absolutely must ditch arcadey multiplayer experiences. Having said that, competition creates money for publishers/developers, and multiplayer games always create competition. We all know that cash seems to be the sole incentive of the games industry these days.
I am the opposite. Campaigns tend to bore me these days (terrible AI and scripting) unless they are co-op, but MP games are like a drug to me. I believe we can cater for all types of gamers and then everyone wins. Options are good.
I agree with you bro!! These developers seem to forget "Whatever an always online device can do, an offline device can also do it". just like our current PS3 and 360. obviously, even if its an offline console, you can connect to the internet "anytime" and "for as long as you want" just like what an always online device would do. This is just a ruse to make us always online all the time. Tell thtat to the rest of the world with poor internet structure and rural, mountain areas where you have electricity but no internet. the word "Optional" is what these developers and companies should put in their heads. Halo is critically acclaimed for mostly its "single player" multiplayer just a big bonus, uncharted, gears, last of us, bioshock, all of which is excellent because of "Single player" enough said
shut up and give me rainbow six
.......Why ubisoft is wrong.
Pah, they never get it do they? Many people play games to be extraordinary, and when other players surround you, you can only ever be ordinary unless you put in months of practice. Not only that, but other players don't move and use tactics which match the setting, even though they may be more successful. The future is NOT multiplayer, but highly advanced AI which allows us to create believable personalities within a universe which are OF that universe. I mean, how can you form an emotional bond with another player in a game? It simply can't happen, unless the two players are exceedingly good actors and somehow don't find it weird to have in-game bonds completely divorced from real life (though I think almost everyone would find that idea very, very strange). On the other hand, AI characters are entirely products of the game world. We are humans and our world is Earth, but AI's are created to feel the same way about their setting. They will always stay true to their role, as there is no other reality for them, and relationships are always convincing because for these intelligences, they are the only bonds they have. Imagine how far we could push that with accurate voice synthesis and dynamic conversations? What about AIs which could learn? Yes it would require a lot of horsepower, but it's on the horizon, and if developers keep shunning investment in that for a cheap multiplayer substitute then its arrival is only ever going to be pushed back. TL;DR version: Ubisoft are so utterly wrong on this. Advanced AI>>>other human players
"We think"...you don't have to think, just ask gamers and they will tell you they don't.
I'm with Darkblood a campaign gamer even when I had the fastest internet connection I chose not to play online. I don't buy games like cod or battlefield where the big focus is multiplayer. I hope always online never happens or at least holds off until the next systems after these
i play online games i think its about 30% online and 70% single player yeah its good but i will never invest alot of time in it nor spend money on it~ screw u when they decide to put the server down and did i mention most is full of cheaters botters, hackers and gold seller that will definitely ruin you're gaming experience
No, Ubisoft, we don't.
I like Ubisoft, but I'll tell ya this, I don't just want an online all the time game. When the servers go down, the disc will be a paperweight. If you want to make the multiplayer the main experience, fine. Just give me options. This is one of the reasons I think the western side of the industry needs to crash.
You're in for a bad time next gen then.... The crew, the division, destiny and titan fall are all online only games....and there's 4 months until next gen consoles launch..... More games will follow as a connected community spends more money post game sale than an un-connected one...
One word for these developers "OPTIONAL"