MS to back track on DRM and always online? Page 19

  • Page

    of 21 First / Last

  • mcmothercruncher 21 Jun 2013 19:48:21 6,767 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Morriss needs a cuddle.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 20:28:20
    ronuds wrote:
    I don't know how the gaming community can make the case that "it's not our fault your budgets are too high" and then turn around and complain when every game isn't the best looking you've ever seen, running at 900fps in 4k209786p and completely unique in every way.
    I don't think that's true. Not everyone cares about graphics. Success stories have ranged from indie to big studios. The difference is, they don't set unrealistic goals to start with. It's foolish of publishers to just expect game x to sell over a certain amount just because other games in that genre have. Tomb Raider is a good example of this. Square Einx set stupid goals for that to be a success. Yet Dark Souls, a nice looking current gen game, didn't actually sell that well to start with. Yet, the team still saw profit. How? Because they didn't throw buckets of money into it as they didn't really know how it would do. Another example, Final Fantasy games cost an absolute bomb to make and take an age to make. And for a while now, they haven't been considered amazing. Yet, in the space of two years, Level 5 produced Ni No Kuni, which has wildly be considered the best JRPG in a long time.
  • oconnomiyaki 21 Jun 2013 20:30:34 245 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    If that family sharing stuff is true, then I don't think anyone can truly be upset. The Spotify comments also show how MS misses the point. Spotify isn't popular because I can send tracks to friends or see what they are listening to; it's popular because for less than a large pizza a month, I have access to more music than I could possibly listen to. PS+ gets closer to it than family sharing.
  • Progguitarist 21 Jun 2013 20:35:39 10,420 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @mcmothercruncher BUT SONY DOES IT TOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  • ronuds 21 Jun 2013 20:39:24 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @SG59 No, of course not everyone cares about graphics, but clearly enough to make developers want to check that box. Otherwise we would still be playing on atari 2600s.
  • oconnomiyaki 21 Jun 2013 20:42:37 245 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    @ronuds I think you'll find the Digital Foundry groupies are in the minority. Two of the best selling games this generation haven't exactly had amazing graphics. The percentage of people who get their knickers in a twist about resolutions and framerates is quite small.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 20:49:33
    @ronuds Yeah, it's a very strange mentality many publishers/developers seem to have. Of course, graphics matter, but its not like every single one has to be amazing. There's a level, which we long ago reached I feel, that's fine. There's a lot of different art styles that can make games standout and be different too. The walking dead for example.
  • ronuds 21 Jun 2013 20:55:16 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think in the end, as much as we hate them, if you didn't have the likes of EA, Acti, etc. in the business, making big-budget titles, it would be very difficult for consoles to survive without all of the output they supply.

    That's why not having them, ala Nintendo atm, can be devastating. Indies are great, but do you think there'd be a new PS or XBOX if they had to rely on their output for success?
  • L0cky 21 Jun 2013 20:57:24 1,519 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Talk about treading old ground!

    Better capabilities offer designers and devs more freedom on what they can do; they don't necessarily have to make full use of them to make a great game.

    Also we're nowhere near a capability limit that could be made use of.

    Publishers on the other hand want to push more polys and pixels because they make screenshots that sell games. I think we're nearing a limit on the effectiveness of this (thankfully).
  • DrStrangelove 21 Jun 2013 20:57:32 3,680 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    When they aim for 60fps, they have to reduce the eye candy, don't they? Would that require the same budgets as 30fps ultra-grpahics games?

    Yes, I know, framerates don't sell games nearly as much as impressive screenshots and trailers.
  • Deleted user 21 June 2013 21:02:25
    I'm not saying they need to die. They just need to get a grip on their budgets and stop blaming everyone and everything else. As for would console gaming survive. Yes. I think it would. The audience would shrink, but I don't think it would kill consoles. We'd still see shooters and so on.
  • L0cky 21 Jun 2013 21:10:42 1,519 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    When they aim for 60fps, they have to reduce the eye candy, don't they? Would that require the same budgets as 30fps ultra-grpahics games?

    Yes, I know, framerates don't sell games nearly as much as impressive screenshots and trailers.
    Good point, could be one reason why we saw more 60fps games at E3. But there's the problem that they can render a 60fps video and put it on youtube, even if the game will actually be 30fps. Don't know if they actually do that though.
  • ronuds 21 Jun 2013 21:14:20 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well, the blame game is ridiculous. It's not as though it's impossible to succeed, so they only need to look to themselves when that doesn't happen.

    Having worked for huge corporations, it's been my belief that the issue is with how detached the people making the important decisions are from their customers. They only see the bottom line.
  • mal 21 Jun 2013 21:15:14 22,448 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    L0cky wrote:
    Better capabilities offer designers and devs more freedom on what they can do; they don't necessarily have to make full use of them to make a great game.
    But in order to appease the publishers and public, developers have to use as close to the full limit of the console's capabilities to make a game that looks at least almost as good as all the other 'triple-A' games other devs are making for other publishers. As those capabilities expand, it costs more time and effort to make games to those standards, especially at the beginning of the cycle when the tools to streamline dev processes simply aren't there.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Baggies 21 Jun 2013 21:31:46 94 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Excellent news as far as I'm concerned.

    I want one now. Where's the best place to pre-order?
  • DrStrangelove 21 Jun 2013 21:58:37 3,680 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    L0cky wrote:
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    When they aim for 60fps, they have to reduce the eye candy, don't they? Would that require the same budgets as 30fps ultra-grpahics games?

    Yes, I know, framerates don't sell games nearly as much as impressive screenshots and trailers.
    Good point, could be one reason why we saw more 60fps games at E3. But there's the problem that they can render a 60fps video and put it on youtube, even if the game will actually be 30fps. Don't know if they actually do that though.
    Youtube is 30fps max if I'm not mistaken, making 60fps games' advantage factually invisible. At least I think that was the reason why DF uses flash video to show 60fps footage.

    Don't know if they can run TV ads at 60fps, but I don't think it would matter. They're not about "wow it looks so smooth", but about "wow splosions boom boom, USA under attack, RC dog I care about". Fact is, hardly anyone cares about frames per second, even though I think 60fps plays a role in CoD's success, even if people don't realise why.

    I think that's a bit like people liking that a car somehow seems very comfortable, without knowing that there's some fancy new suspension tech beneath or whatever.

    Edited by DrStrangelove at 22:01:32 21-06-2013
  • L0cky 22 Jun 2013 01:03:56 1,519 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    What would be nice is if the majority of games are 60fps at the launch of the console. Then the regular gamer will notice it more when some games are 30fps. They'll seem sluggish in comparison to the norm.

    Then it'd be harder to go back to a 30fps majority.
  • Rodney 22 Jun 2013 01:34:36 1,864 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    They could trim a lot of budgets by making everything 'cinematic'. Most storylines in games are shit any way.

    I played the latest Call of Juarez and I think the game benefited from not getting bogged down in cut scenes and some grand story.

    regarding next-gen budgets, does it really cost more to create 1080p assets rather than 720p? I imagine a lot of the dev tools are already in place from this gen. They can just bump up the res and shaders and make fewer compromises next gen.
  • Rodney 22 Jun 2013 01:35:25 1,864 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Less cinematic*
  • Khanivor 22 Jun 2013 01:54:25 40,520 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A lot of games could certainly jettison their aspirations to be all cinematic without losing much. TBH, I lose interest in many games because they spend way too much time doing fancy exposition and trying to tell an irrelevant story. If I've bought a racing game it's because I want to drive cars fast, not prove myself to the made up racing world and become famous. If I've bought a shooter I want to make things be shot and exploded. Nothing more.
  • Riven326 22 Jun 2013 03:48:28 41 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    A lot of games could certainly jettison their aspirations to be all cinematic without losing much. TBH, I lose interest in many games because they spend way too much time doing fancy exposition and trying to tell an irrelevant story. If I've bought a racing game it's because I want to drive cars fast, not prove myself to the made up racing world and become famous. If I've bought a shooter I want to make things be shot and exploded. Nothing more.
    But I think it would take away from certain games that rely on a good story.

    Xbox Live: Riven326
    Steam: Riven326

  • oconnomiyaki 22 Jun 2013 04:00:55 245 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    But I think it would take away from certain games that rely on a good story.
    The problem is that they rely on them. It's a crutch for games that can't be good games. Most games have terrible stories and I'm convinced that half the people who praise games for their narratives don't actually read.

    Some semblance of a tale might keep me motivated to progress to the next level it's 2am and I'm really knackered, but I personally believe it should never be the sole motivation to engage with a game.
  • Deleted user 22 June 2013 04:17:36
    The best game narratives (and stories) use gameplay to forward it. This absolutely does not require cinematics, AAA budgets or even decent graphics.

    I know I keep pimping it, but Papers, Please is a fantastic example of how this idea of gameplay narrative can work - the gameplay mechanics in themselves create narrative dilemma (ultimately ending up a balancing act whereby being good at the game and following the rules actually endangers your fictional family). And it doesn't even have a fully fleshed out story behind it yet.

    But yes, "game narratives" and "story narratives" are two wildly different things. The former is very rarely used, the latter is massively overused and often shoehorned uncomfortably (especially in open world games, where the gameplayer can do things entirely at odds with the motivations of the character they're playing). Games need to stop attempting to ape movies and grow into their own medium.
  • Baihu1983 22 Jun 2013 08:15:49 3,391 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/21/on-xbox-ones-social-network-canceled-family-share-demos

    The family sharing thing was NOT a time-limited demo!

    https://twitter.com/aegies/status/347748309550645249

    Arthur Gies - Editor at Polygon said
    "The Xbox One game sharing thing was real. It was not demos. They had arrangements with publishers in place."
  • Armoured_Bear 22 Jun 2013 08:21:48 10,568 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Riven326 wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    A lot of games could certainly jettison their aspirations to be all cinematic without losing much. TBH, I lose interest in many games because they spend way too much time doing fancy exposition and trying to tell an irrelevant story. If I've bought a racing game it's because I want to drive cars fast, not prove myself to the made up racing world and become famous. If I've bought a shooter I want to make things be shot and exploded. Nothing more.
    But I think it would take away from certain games that rely on a good story.
    Good Stories in games are almost non-existent.
    The need to add shittons of expensive CGI/Cut Scenes to everything is utterly stupid.
    Just think how much cheaper and better Metal Gear without all the horrendous hours and hours of "story", cringeworthy dialogue and pointless shit.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • sport 22 Jun 2013 08:25:01 12,686 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    OMG, what have we done?

    WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!?!?!
  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 09:17:40 20,574 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Baihu1983 wrote:
    http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/21/on-xbox-ones-social-network-canceled-family-share-demos

    The family sharing thing was NOT a time-limited demo!

    https://twitter.com/aegies/status/347748309550645249

    Arthur Gies - Editor at Polygon said
    "The Xbox One game sharing thing was real. It was not demos. They had arrangements with publishers in place."
    There would have been limits in one form or another. Otherwise it would have been abused, as I posted about 376 pages and 4653 boring posts ago, that 10 of us could have formed a group otherwise, and just agreed to each play a game and then 'pass it on' to the next person, rotating the first person in the queue for each game.

    Eurogamers, Gamefaqqers, IGNers, Hotdealukers etc. etc. would have been abusing it left right and centre.

    But oh no, things are going to remain as they are now. Because that hasn't worked out well for the past 20 odd years. Fuck it, I'll go fetch a knife and end it all now.
  • King_Edward 22 Jun 2013 09:22:49 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    They can say it was whatever they want now they're not doing it.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 22 Jun 2013 09:34:43 37,766 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I had always assumed that the sharing would have worked by needing the "family" members to have logged into the game owner's console at least once via the whole Kinect facial recognition thing. That way you couldn't just share out to random jackasses on teh internets.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • kentmonkey 22 Jun 2013 09:36:54 20,574 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    /prints off photo of Mr Tom
    /holds it in front of camera
    /promises to the gods of MS that he's really my brother
  • Page

    of 21 First / Last

Log in or register to reply