Microsoft have been at the forefront of cloud gaming and even though nothing has been practically implemented, they have showcased their technology and have stated in the past that several effects can be improved in their games.
The day that happens it means that we will be forced to by "always online, cannot work without an internet connection, cannot play single player games without an internet connection" games and systems. This is where they are trying to push us, this is when they will remove our rights. How long before gamers see that this is NOT a good thing? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will not support gaming if it reaches this stage.
yup , cloud gaming is a fancy word for online drm. when they'll shut down servers and stop supporting said games, you can kiss em good bye.
They already shut down servers and stop supporting games after awhile. March of this year Sony shutdown the servers for the resistance games. It's a part of the industry and has been for some time. They can't remove your rights. Money speaks. If cloud gaming takes off and it has a rough start and people speak with their wallets they will rectify the problem and it will get better for everyone.
Wich means you can still play the game offline at least . There is an ocean of difference between eventually dropping mp support for a game no longer popular , and plainly "preventing" a game from ever working again . A good example of that is Tales of Phantasia on mobile platforms , a frickin' offline jrpg . They made it in such a twisted way , that with the servers out of commission ... you can't play the game at all . And then logically they even removed the game from the stores . At least it was free , but you can see the kind of stuff being tested there And yet people argue about stupid things like "who doesnt have the net this day and age ?" . They dont see farther ahead , and how it's easy to abuse such dependancies and enforce any conditions on games and gamers . Nor how dependant it makes some games not offering any benefits from the forced online (such as Diablo 3) .. when there are servers issues , attacks etc
Shloob , "Game Worlds Are Going To Become So Large That They Can Only Be Stored In Cloud". How long should they keep these on the cloud? You bet you're gonna have to rely on them to play SP. What happen to your games then? To your console you sunk money into? People love to go back to oldies from time to time , i still play Mario Bros on NES when friends come over and we feel like going on the nostalgic road.
That is just bull. With time worlds will get bigger, true, but aren't machines getting bigger and better with the time? I remember when I was a kid and my computer only had 120Mbits of disk storage. By today standarts that's nothing, but in that time it was huge.
"Microsoft have been at the forefront of cloud gaming..." One can't help but laugh at this. Since when??
Still mad they shutdown MAG servers. A MP ONLY game mind you.
Comcast says hi! That game is going to use the cloud, after the company pays the ISP first. They keep talking about the cloud and yet the basic problem hasn't been solved about keeping the internet open.
I still have digital games from about 8 or 9 years ago...what are you guys talking about?? They will not just turn off access to a game, online maybe, but they will not just turn off access to a game that you paid for. Where do you guys get this notion from?
"They will not just turn off access to a game, online maybe, but they will not just turn off access to a game that you paid for" You were just given an example of this precisely happening . And no it's not even the sole and first time . Of course even a solo game relying on any online function to run at all , will be shut down the moment its server go offline . And of course the wording of the purchase will be in a tos/eula and a way you'd not own the game but an access license to it , in such cases . ANd naturally they'd remove the game from download if it's down , to avoid any issues . The moment it happens to a popular enough game , there will be a riot , but the groundwork for it is already there .. all it needs is a cynical EA , Ubi , Square , Capcom etc
It's as simple as giving you a license key to download those old games you paid for in some cases, sort of how they have sites where you can download and play tons of retro games on your pc. Online only games are brought with the understanding that you won't have them for eternity. I mean just go back and look at all those live arcade and psn digital downloads, do you really expect to play them forever, however I do forsee these companies establishing a completely seperate online service to give us access to game once they get very old and no longer supported. Speaking for myself I'll take a fully cloud enabled megaton AAA online only game that offers ever changing locations, sophisticated AI, realtime destruction, weather and other on the fly updates for $60 that YES will have server support for only 5yrs or as long as the community plays vs the same game for $60 minus these cloud benefits offline and available to me forever. I dont see why people see it as "Dont push forward because *I* dont want it", or lecturing those interested as if we are to dumb to know whats good for us, hey why don't you just refuse to buy that type of game no different than how WOW type games don't interest me but who are you or me to say they shouldn't exist???..to each his own I just find some of the cocepts of a more robust ever changing game very interesting, if a dev thinks it will give him more creative freedom, I say go for it. I mean as I think about my gaming habits now, I haven't touched my 360 or ps3 in ages, I tell myself "no keep it, just in case", but realistically I won't, hell I barely have time to play my X1. I'm not too nostalgic unless there's a quality remake to give me a reason to be, otherwise I by the time that cloud megaton is going offline I'll be long since move on to the next big experience.
@Melman I can't download a digital copy of R-Type I brought on the PS3 when it first came out. Despite having paid for it, it's no longer available. I can get a different version if I want to spend another $5. Games for Windows(pretty big news last year) recently took down their entire servers, and anyone who didn't download the patches to allow the games to play without authentication are SOL unless they want to torrent the program, which most people can't actually do. There are actually quite a few games and apps on iOS or google app store that are no longer available to download regardless of if they are purchased or not, and often times the free ones with downloadable content you simply lose all access to any money spent on them. Then of course there is the issue of when things are taken off of these services, they are no longer legally available. Doesn't matter if you want to pay to play them, you just can't legally. That doesn't seem like a really bright future to me. Then of course, at any time, servers can be shut down because they aren't profitable enough to maintain(Games for Windows for instance). Apple could one day if they stop being popular. XBL could if MS decides to drop out of the console business. Then what? Where would you download all your purchases from then? I guess we can take solace in the fact that the Library of Congress started archiving games digitally back in 2006, and we can always hope that the underground ROM/ISO sites will not get busted by authorities so we can keep in touch with our gaming roots...something a lot of gamers seem to be willing to give up in the name of allowing corporations control our purchases and playing habits.
to the mindless disagreers to my previous comment. what is the thing that has put MS at the FOREFRONT of cloud gaming as the matter of speaking? drivatar?
Rather depends. In a scenario where being connected actually enhances a game and makes new things possible I think most people will embrace it. If connectivity is artificially forced with no easily perceivable benefit to the player, people will rage hard (see Diablo 3 requirement, Xbox announce).
Couldn't have put it better myself. If it's relevant to the game then it's worthwhile. No one complains about games like WoW where it's reliant on being online.
I agree with you overall, but all this overlooks the fact that many people don't even log onto the internet to play games. The 360 had less than half it's install base online, and probably less than that with access to online gaming. Not sure what the PS3 numbers were. PC is doing OK here, but there are still plenty of people who buy games without fast internet connection, and they won't be ignored. Just go to wal-mart or Best Buy and look at their PC section. Those games are there because their target audience doesn't log into the net to play. Even EA has a section for their Sims products, so even EA knows that it can't screw over all it's customers(although they sure would love to). Think Sony stated that around 95% of all PS4 owners had connected their PS4, but notice they didn't give exact numbers on how many were actually playing games online. I'm not saying that 10-20 years from now things won't be different with the number of people connecting, but with more people connecting it means the infrastructure just isn't going to be able to keep up. It can barely keep up now, and we're still pretty much using the same backbone that we used 10-15 years ago. Here's an interesting article on this http://www.theguardian.com/... On other point, the reason we don't have cheaper faster internet here in the US is because the infrastructure just can't cope with it. The uptake in streaming and portable always connected devices is jamming the bandwidth severely. Google Fiber may relieve some of this, but other companies like Verizon and AT&T are delaying the implementation of alternative ways to free up bandwidth because it's too expensive compared to what they can make because competition has driven prices down so low(hard to believe given what they charge I know). Because of this, Google fiber can't be the only answer, because despite Google's massive cash reserves, they can't lay it all out to provide the public with fast free internet, and eventually, they'll hit bandwidth problems as well. It's really not until the governments in a country step and and either do it themselves, or give grants to get it done, where it will happen, and I don't see that happening here in the US unless the government gets control over the net like they want.
Bye then... but for real, It's going to happen and I don't mind all digital especially if it's cheaper. I think it will be until next gen that we see anything you won't support happen.
Yeah, we're so lucky to have people like you that will encourage sacrificing your rights to save a couple extra bucks.
Because digital versions of games on consoles are cheaper now right? What makes you think they will do anything but raise prices. Just think, the only place I will be able to get my game is psn or Xbox live. No competition means prices will be higher for longer.
I would agree if digital was cheaper but it isn't, it's more expensive. It certainly should be cheaper, after all the producers save on production costs and shipping. That's quite a big deal. Sony and MS etc. need to understand this. People need to have a reason to go digital, other than it being the only option.
Then don't play those games that require you to be online at all times. I for one don't mind it all.
I can't play half the games on android with out a cellular connection, including ones that make no sense like Madden.
How often do you boot up your ps4 and xbox one or PC and are not connected to the internt?!? People opt to be connected anyways all the time. So I think people like you just dont want to be told they have to be connected even though they are going to be anyways. Always online requirement will push gaming forward. Embrace the future already.
"Always online requirement will push gaming forward" Do tell us how. Please I want to know. I'll get my retorts out of the way early. Better AI? sure, most developers don't invest the money or time on making good AI. Game AI is relatively simple in fact if you know how these things are programmed, and I don't see the cloud changing that. Graphics? How is better graphics pushing games forward? I see a lot of X1 fans saying it's about the game play, and not the graphics. Lot of Nintendo owners feel the same. Most PS4 owners feel similar, as they seem to be rather excited over some of the indies which aren't exactly graphical powerhouses. Larger worlds? Yeah, because we see a huge trend in games becoming massively bigger and not smaller. Larger worlds = more money spent on making them. Most publishers are going with tighter more detailed scenes that pack things into what's available. Persistent worlds? Sure that's great for online games, or games with online components. But stored values do this just fine for single player games, and isn't really pushing gaming forward as this kind of thing has been around for over 15 years. Also in answer to your question, I automatically log in on my PS3 and PS4 because it's just what it is. I do not automatically go in and play games online though, because I don't want to.
I didnt say you always play online games, im saying that you are always connected regardles of what type of game experience you are having. Everyone online by default would enhance community, bringing everyone much closer as well as possibilities for all those things you mentioned with time rainslacker.
So you believe that features that have nothing to do with games directly will push gaming forward? Social connectivity is already here. It's been around for a while. Not everyone chooses to use it, and requiring people to do so is not the future, it's forced compliance. Some people just want to play a game and not be bothered. Of course all those things will come with time. But it doesn't require being connected to do. AI algorithms today are practically the same as they were in the PS2 days. Graphics require more memory and assets, things that are directly contradictory to an online connection which will always be slower than a local bus. Larger worlds is pointless, as the larger a world gets the harder it is to play...all games require structure. And persistent worlds are an online feature, which are available today...and some people don't care about it...so again, it's forced compliance. Anyhow, I don't believe that bringing the world together through forced connectivity is a good thing. Socializing should always be a choice, and people that want to game without all the overhead should be able to. But to be fair, I'm one of those people that believe that people while more socially connected today, are actually less capable of personal social interaction. I also personally don't care what other people are doing while I'm playing an RPG, nor do I care to have it interrupted unless it's an MMO. I respect your opinion on it, and admire your optimism on how social others can be, but I just don't see it really enhancing gaming any more than it already does for those that don't want to embrace the future.
Well said rainslacker and bubble up.
"Yeah, we're so lucky to have people like you that will encourage sacrificing your rights to save a couple extra bucks." And what will you do about it johndoe? Easy to point the finger at others and pretend you are a crusader for the common man but what are you actually going to do to stop the advancement of this technology? Did you stop DLC, Paid Online and other "non-friendly" anti consumer practices or did you complain about it by posting on N4G for a week then "got over it".
What this comment entails isn't even accurate. If a game world has to be streamed, it still has to be stored locally to be displayed, so it wouldn't really matter whether that info comes from local or cloud storage, and local storage will always be significantly faster. What this guy is talking about is true in the sense of a single player that has a persistent open world, but even then, local storage is still significantly faster. This means to play it with any sort of meaningful increase in the larger size, the entire game needs to be played on the server, like what is being done with Gaikai. What this means is a tremendous amount of resources on the server side, and huge amounts of bandwidth being consumed for games, at a time when bandwidth limits are already stretched with no sign that it will be lightened or the backbone improved anytime soon. In the end, games while becoming larger in resources, are actually becoming smaller in content. Open world games are becoming more linear. New techniques and tricks in developing a scene are becoming so complex, that there isn't going to be massive improvement by just moving it to the cloud. Gaming will have a local option for a very long time to come, so no need to worry about having to drop out of gaming. Moving gaming to the cloud is moving games to be a service, and if the service provides less benefits than it already does for local games, then people aren't going to lap it up, as witnessed by the X1 reveal and subsequent controversy.
Good or bad thing this likely won't become the norm until everyone has blistering internet speeds so its not really much to worry about until then. Physical discs and such should still exist for quite awhile. They are pushing Digital because its cheaper for them to produce and they earn back more profit. That is their only concern.
Don't they call those "MMO"s? But seriously, this is what pisses me off about MS and their "idea" of cloud gaming. That many are praising them for something yet delivered. Its the "potential" of Kinect all over again.
Oh ye of little faith. .