The numbers of those with the Internet could speak volumes about why the offline gamer isn't so important in the future.
I remember saying this before....internet access for year 2012: UK -83.6% Germany -83% Japan -79.5% US -78.1% "The figures don’t lie and what’s probably reason enough to drop non connected households is the fact that in the biggest gaming countries, there are more people with Internet connections than those without." http://cramgaming.com/is-th... -Whats even more telling is that the numbers are likely much, much higher among those who already own a 360 or ps3. So the idea that micro will lose a substantial amount of its fanbase due to needing internet connectivity once every 24hrs is silly. Also they've said they are working on other offline options for the authentification code in absence of internet capability like for the military for example. Again its unfortunate that a small minority may get left out but the reality is that technology will continue to advance regardless if some can't afford it.
I guess it's progress, I still remember the original Xbox only came with a high speed modem, and at the time I was used to gaming with dial up, and I was outraged at the time, but once I got high speed internet I changed my tune. Also, it's not like you cant play the game if you drop connection on Xbox One. If online truly improves the gaming experience, I'm okay with it. As long as you can still play the games if your internet drops completely, which sounds like the case.
"Also, it's not like you cant play the game if you drop connection on Xbox One." Actually according to Microsoft the Xbox One will do an online check at least once every 24 hours, so you DO need an internet connect. You cannot play the Xbox One without it.
Well as I said there are reports micro are working on some type of offline option. So any definitive statements about what you will or won't need is premature.
Even if those statements were made by MS employees? Are those statements to be treated as rumours? I think not. If MS does come with a different tune at E3 it will definetely be because of the well deserved backlash they got from gamers around the World.
in with Microsoft. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... "Shuhei Yoshida: Oh yes, yes, you can go offline totally. Social is big for us, but we understand there are some people who are anti-social! So if you don't want to connect to anyone else, you can do that." Sony hasn't forgot about the people in part of the world where internet just isn't an option. Should they just be ignored? These are the people less likely to trade in their games because they'd probably have more replay value to them.
It doesn't matter, the problem is WHY IS THIS EVEN NEEDED? It's plain greed now, this generation has gone by without this BS why can't the next? Sure, we can pull that chart up, but just think of the thousands of rational circumstances that can lead to not being able to even ACCESS THE SINGLE PLAYER OF A GAME YOU PAID FOR!
"The main reason being that many countries don't have robust Internet connections. It makes sense for people to have Internet connections to play online games, but for offline games there are many countries that we saw [that] do not really have robust Internet." - Shuhei Yoshida(sony) http://www.joystiq.com/2013...
No in fact they are much lower, last years survey showed something like 65% of PS3's were connected and even fewer 360's were connected. You are making the incorrect assumption that because people have internet that they connect all their consoles, they don't.
They want us always to be connected to a bunch of people we don't know for stupid little bragging rights features that are douchey.
The PS4 allows offline play.So yeah.
Pretty much ^ Europe, US & Japan = not world. Sony has been active in developing countries for a good reason, there's a lot of growth and gain in those regions.
Except the fatal flaw in your sony offline theory is that sony has not officially announced their used game policy, nor their online policies. We only have their past practices (which is positive) and rumors at this point in time.
No, the major Playstation heads have expressed negativity towards "anti-consumer" behaviour.
You can express all you want, doesn't make it reality until confirmed. I can express I want a supermodel girlfriend.
http://www.giantbomb.com/pl... The ps4 plays used games. People need to look this stuff up.
Yoshida said online activation can be "up to the publisher" to implement, now how can that be implemented if ps4 can be never online?
Because if, I guess I'll call it a standard, of the system is that it can play games offline, then Sony expects publishers to follow it's guidelines that the game must be playable offline for everyone who owns the system, regardless of their internet connection. Sony controls what content can be put on the system, so it's within their rights to do this, just like all console manufacturers. Now, if a game is wholly an online game, or has MP, then it's possible to lock that stuff out based on the fact it has to be connected to work, in which case, online registration would amount to a digital online-pass. It's feasible that SP content could be locked out because of this if a MP component exists in the game, but Sony tends to be pretty stringent in these rules, and doesn't leave room for interpretation. To them they would want to be able to sell the game to as many people as possible, which means keeping SP offline. The only thing that throws a kink in this is the "we're leaving it up to the publisher" remark. In which case, it is possible that they have implemented something where publishers can decide to restrict their game through online registration. Whether that's true and whether that applies to the whole game, or just the MP remains to be seen. Either way, it just means that if a publisher decides to restrict it, then it wouldn't work on unconnected consoles.
except you can use your PS4 completely offline, so....
but you most likely wont, all of a sudden you all forgot about multiplayer online games. just cause a few wont go online the majority will, the crying will eventually stop when you all grow up. get with the future guys, your all starting to sound like a bunch of 50 year old paranoid men
@badkolo What on earth are you banging on about?
"But you most likely won't" "The majority will" Just like the majority of PC games require you to always be online? Get real. Just because the option is there doesn't mean everybody will want to use it.
The number of games coming out with multiplayer is declining. http://www.gamesradar.com/c... According to NPD though, 72% of gamers play some form of online game. This data is spread out across all platforms and devices, and all types of games, so it's not to say 72% play console games online...in fact MS own numbers don't add up to that as only roughly half their install base has a live account, and actual gold member numbers are unknown. It also disregards the frequency with which people go online. For instance, I play MP maybe once every 3-4 months, but don't invest a lot of time in it. http://www.gamesindustry.bi... I'm afraid MP gaming, or using the system to go online is still not as ubiquitous as this article makes it out to be. It leaves out important data, which is weird because I found it quite easily. It also ignores quite a bit of the people that actually do not touch online at all, not a number worth ignoring, although can't find anything specific.
Am I missing something? In what way does Sony not care about those without internet? Please don't lump them in with Microsoft just because they are both releasing new consoles this year.
Just a way to lump Sony into a negative situation
Disagreed with you both for the mere reason that Sony has invested heavily in Online already with its PSN and PSplus. Its acquisition of Gakai for $380 million. Sure the pS4 can play offline, but that's not really what's being discussed here. The focus from both companies is Online users.
Hey bunt A console sale is money on or off line. Sony sells to many regions of the world that MS doesn't. Some of those countries don't have internet. Should Sony just give up the money and sales of those places because they don't have internet? Your line of thinking is off. I didn't mention the amount of money off the games offline buyers spend. Get real internet isn't everything for gaming. Edit Only less than a third of american households have internet. You don't limit a product and hurt your target market.
If MS or Sony wants to apply online DRM, they should honestly really apply the Blizzard approach found in Starcraft 2. Login ONCE in a while to reregister.
Having a console that does strictly online is kind of pointless. Where I live some rural farmers don't get the internet and a friend of mine still uses dial up for the internet and another buddy of mine has not even taken his PS3 online no updates or anything. And that doesn't phase him he continues to play and have fun even playing two player split screen. The consoles will have offline capabilities and so will the games. Just playing multiplayer or getting DLC or a system update will be a headache. You have to cater to that market as well that market of offline players has been around since the Atari days. Microsoft in my eyes has chosen a differant path than the PS4. Microsoft is trying to be the center hub in the house where you watch tv surf the net creep about facebook profiles and twitter and play games. Sony will have some simular features but they are staying mainly with what made the Playstation brand popular and strong and thats the games. I'd rather play a game then surf Facebook or Twitter. And honestly the cable feature would be alright but I already have a cable box and some if not most of those channels we don't get up here in Canada due to the goverment and their practises so the cable feature of the XboxOne is not a big selling point on me its the games.
I don't know I think the emerging markets are also important(The ones with lousy or no internet connection in this case). If you can get them to buy into your product/brand now, then that could lead to loyalty and more purchases in the future. Edit: I think there is a way to balance things out in making a device future proof without totally handicapping the consumers who may not be able to access a particular feature or service at this point in time.
I didn't have an HD TV at the start of last gen or any interest in Blu Ray..
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS? Sorry but Turok 3 trumps this gamr on every level and I have not even reached the second one On a more serious level who would buy this? It seems to me that quake 4 is a better choice
hahahaha i felt like in the 90's
I'd like to point out that those with Internet and dedicated gamers/media consumers ....will not tolerate downtime & all this costs bandwidth. Internet providers will love gouging us. Imagine Internet use at college campuses! They have incredible fiber optics but still....that might be a nightmare waiting to happen. You think cloud gaming is going to have a footprint comfortable to regular server to peer connectin? Lol Make no mistake - it's MS arrogance at play here. Not well thought out business plans.
It could be that MS is looking at their numbers and feeling offline is a minority. If there are 45+ million Gold subscribers out of maybe 60 million active machines, over 75% of Xbox users are already online. If you add that many people have more than one machine the percentage of people on Live is probably over 85%. So maybe MS is catering to their market and not to Sony fans that whine about $40. If they have a compelling reason for the rest to make the jump, like the Cloud boosting the power of the console, it makes it an even smarter reason. Plus they have said you can play single player offline. So people need to let that rumor go. Internet at colleges does suck, but you'll move off campus in your junior year so you'll be okay. You should be studying anyway. You're assuming they will still be using P2P. They aren't using 300,000 servers for P2P. MS profits have risen year after year for some time. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen them make less than the previous year. So with Windows 8 not doing as well as they expected and they still made record profits, I trust their business decisions more than Sony and Nintendo. Especially with Sony contemplating breaking up the company just to get cash.
Thought that 45 million was all Live subscribers, not just gold. If you have a link to prove otherwise I'd be happy to see it. Even still that's only 75% of their "active" install base(by your guesstimate), or roughly 60% of their number of systems sold . Dropping 15 million users doesn't seem like sound business sense unless they truly feel they can pick it up elsewhere. Either that or they are really banking on a majority of those 15 million actually connecting to play on their console, also likely since it means chance to convert to gold is higher. Which I also wouldn't doubt is a major reason why they want to have a console required to go online.
If the systems power is boosted by Live I'm sure the level of subscribers will go up. Say if Live users got server based games with complete destruction and 100 or 200+ players people would pay. I would prefer that to a bunch of games that I may not have any interest in. Don't get me wrong, PSN+ is a good deal. But I've seen the list of games and it's not a lot that I play. And since I don't have a PSP or Vita the list means even less to me. I only saw two games I had any interest in. I don't believe the required online nonsense being pushed by Sony fanboys. Different people from MS have said different things which I believe is about keeping the Xbox on peoples minds. Looking back at the leaked document MS acknowledged was in-house it showed games that worked across several platforms. I think if they are using Cloud compute they will allow a Live member to play their One games across many devices. Those two things make Live a must and a great deal. So while I don't believe online will be mandatory, I believe it will be for the entire One experience. And I believe most will buy it.
I have no doubt the numbers for both would go up if sales stay the same or increase based on current gen sales. This is particularly true if MS integrates more key features into the Live ecosystem, as opposed to adding desired services they use now to justify the price(not intending to start a debate on lives value, just making a point). To the rest, about their cloud and all that, I hope you're right. There are some technical issues which I think make it not as rosy as you think it may be, but that's mostly theoretical and I'm a bit too tired to discuss that. Otherwise, thank you for offering a decent analysis of why you feel the way you do.
It seems like those who defend the always online thing will never understand the issue. We live in a world where everything is connected right? yes, but this our decision not forced on us by corporates. My ps3, laptop, mobile connected 24 hours, but if there's no internet none of the devices will be useless. We don't want to suffer because the internet is down.
Games like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Infamous, etc. tell us that Sony cares very much for the offline/single player.
If your Internet is down for more then 24 hours you have bigger issues to worry bout.
No need to add Sony to the mix.. Sony wont abandon offline gaming
microsoft is just ahead of its time. Remember when xbox came out, nobody had broadband. but they put an ethernet only port on the xbox. The only thing I think they screwed up on is that people are cuting cable. It does suck for those without internet, but really this generation these people are already screwed. What game is released without bugs today? honestly if your xbox or ps3 isn't connected to the internet you are missing out.
Hey look Sony has drm now read up on it today
OH? Where's the link? Wait, you're just trollin, so you got nothin. Nevermind.
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.