134 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

bleetman wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well..for PC maybe if you are following the Diablo III line of thought. That said Blizzard dropped the ball on that one when they underestimated the constant lagging that occurs online. But now the question is simple, is always being online a bad thing if everything in-game runs smoothly?

When has that ever been the case, though? I have never, ever, in my entire life, had a gaming experience with an always online requirement (for whatever reason, either as DRM or simply because it was a multiplayer game) that had flawless performance, and I seriously question the legitimacy of anyone who says they have. Every game that required me to be online to play them have been a hassle. Every single one. And I'm largely bypassing the issue of lacking internet access due to circumstance, as I primarily play games from my home computer.

In return for this unecessary hassle that, with frustrating frequency, has thus far served to simply prevent people from playing their games at all, we get... what? Thus far, either features we can already get without the always on requirement (achievements and cloud saving is the two I tend to be told when I ask this question) or things we flat out don't want/are arguably damaging to the game (the auction house in Diablo 3).

Then the better question to ask is this. Why is it online always? What are the reasons for it and does it adequately adhere to the "service" movement that most publishers have adopted? And how can they modify it so it does then meet acceptable standards for the consumers, without removing it completely, which at this point is not an option. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 18 février 2013 - 04:35 .

[Lennard Testarossa]

An auction house? Hell no. Crap like that ruins my immersion. The same goes for sharing a chest with your other characters. This isn't Diablo.

[NRieh]

I think it was Chris Avellone from obsidian who said he was working on trying to socialize the single player RPG.

There is no need to invent a wheel, all of P&P RPGs were nothing but social, those who love it - still play them, while some other go for MMOs.

I can't understand what "social" can be about single-player. The only thing that I have in mind is some kind of user-generated content service (for sharing mods, art fics etc). But you can do this literally everywhere. Markets and auctions? They'd better honestly admit that they're simply looking for more ways to make people pay.

[lil yonce]

Nrieh wrote...

I can't understand what "social" can be about single-player. The only thing that I have in mind is some kind of user-generated content service (for sharing mods, art fics etc). But you can do this literally everywhere. Markets and auctions? They'd better honestly admit that they're simply looking for more ways to make people pay.

Maybe on the PC there a lot of places to upload created content, but not on the console. I can't download mods for a console version of a game. 

And on every platform, The Sims has a trading feature called The Exchange and its free. EA doesn't charge for use.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 18 février 2013 - 04:44 .

[cindercatz]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Nrieh wrote...

I can't understand what "social" can be about single-player. The only thing that I have in mind is some kind of user-generated content service (for sharing mods, art fics etc). But you can do this literally everywhere. Markets and auctions? They'd better honestly admit that they're simply looking for more ways to make people pay.

Maybe on the PC there a lot of places to upload created content, but not on the console. I can't download mods for a console version of a game. 

And on every platform, The Sims has a trading feature called The Exchange and its free. EA doesn't charge for use.

Yeah, allowing a means of dowloading (and creating in-game) user mods on console would be a dream. I definitely would have utilised that for DA:O, had it been available. Hopefully there'd be quality control just to make sure nothing breaks the game, has any malware, or overwrites the existing story (without being clearly separated as a seperate game menu item or something, just not requiring a reinstall). They have that, and I'd be a very pleased.

[SparksMKII]

LinksOcarina wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Am I the only one that likes playing singleplayer games as a singleplayer?

No I like it too.

That said, I also like playing online with people. If I get to choose between the two within one game, and if its implemented properly, then I see no issue with it. 

Same here altho a co-op opt-in where a 2nd player can just jump in and take control of 1 of your party members would be totally fine with me as long as I have the option to turn it off so random people don't invade my games when I don't want them to like Diablo3  . There is only so much trolling one can take.

Modifié par SparksMKII, 19 février 2013 - 12:20 .

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Explain?

Well..for PC maybe if you are following the Diablo III line of thought. That said Blizzard dropped the ball on that one when they underestimated the constant lagging that occurs online. But now the question is simple, is always being online a bad thing if everything in-game runs smoothly?

It is because not everyone can or wants to.

Most companies are not interested in the abilities of someone using their products. I can't run steam on my laptop, but Valve has no interest in making things easier for me so I can use their product. Hell, I needed to do a work-around to just install XCOM on my computer here through steam, and even then it still crahsed in the end on the Steam browser.

Is that Valve's fault? No. But why would they care to begin with about something partially under my control? 

As for want, well, that's out of your hands. The only option then is to not buy the products. But it also doesn't explain why the system is bad yet. It just tells me you think its bad because of that.

That is not good enough as an explanation.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 février 2013 - 05:05 .

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Most companies are not interested in the abilities of someone using their products. I can't run steam on my laptop, but Valve has no interest in making things easier for me so I can use their product. Hell, I needed to do a work-around to just install XCOM on my computer here, and even then it still didn't run.

Is that Valve's fault? No. But why would they care to begin with about something partially under my control.

As for want, well, that's out of your hands. The only option then is to not buy the products. But it also doesn't explain why the system is bad yet. It just tells me you think its bad because of that.

That is not good enough as an explanation.

I would argue they most definitely ARE interested in that: if someone can't use it, they wouldn't buy it. There's a reason games still use two DVDs and no Blu-Ray  on PC, you know.

And that's also part of the reason why there isn't more always-online now. That's the reason why Uisoft actually STOPPED using always-online: Because it was hurting their customer base, and they finally realized that.

I think it's a perfectly valid explanation, on the example of Ubisoft alone. They do it to "lower piracy," but realize that it was bad--that it's inhibiting sales--and change it back.

Ubisoft however had a poorly implemented system. My point is is what does it take to not make it poorly implemented, because its not going away at this point. 

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Ubisoft however had a poorly implemented system. My point is is what does it take to not make it poorly implemented, because its not going away at this point. 

So? That means they fix it, not scrap it. If always-online is better.

But it isn't. That's why they got rid of it. It wasn't simply because "we're having trouble implementing this." The theoretical benefits did not outweigh the costs.

For them.

Scraping it once doesn't mean giving up on it though. Ubisoft for all we know may be looking at other ways to introduce online connectivity. The Uplay store is a good example of social connectivity in that regard.  

And considering everything is at the point of beng connected anyway, there is a possability companies will no longer segregate online-offline modes. So it becomes a question of fixing the current system since the future is moving towards that, instead of scraping it all together. That is what this thread is mostly about, how can socializing work, instead of why should we have it.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

xAmilli0n wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

I just want to play games in peace.

^ This right here.  If I want to play with friends, I'll play an appropriate game.  Don't tamper with my single player experience.

The same here. I don't think every game genre needs a social media/multiplayer aspect to make it succeed. I will admit that some genres (like sports games and FPS) that benefit strongly from it. IMHO however RPGs don't need it and they seem more likely to fail than succeed. 

IMHO Fable 2 and Fable 3, have both failed miserably at multiplayer and Mass Effect 3 would have been better without the EMS tied to MP.    

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

For them.

Scraping it once doesn't mean giving up on it though. Ubisoft for all we know may be looking at other ways to introduce online connectivity. The Uplay store is a good example of social connectivity in that regard.  

And considering everything is at the point of beng connected anyway, there is a possability companies will no longer segregate online-offline modes. So it becomes a question of fixing the current system since the future is moving towards that, instead of scraping it all together. That is what this thread is mostly about, how can socializing work, instead of why should we have it.

It doesn't make an ounce of sense to implement something, become depised in the business because of it, remove it, and secretly plot to put it back in. If they were planning to do so, they likely would have simply changed the system, not removed it. If they really do that, Ubisoft will become more despised than they already are.

I disagree very strongly with the "Oh well, it's going to be this way anyway, might as well take it" mindset on matter like this, which seems to be...argued here.

Well it has been that way regardless of what happens. In fact id argue it has been since 2007. The gaming public has changed in the past five-six years, and companies are looking for ways to go with those changes. 

Hell, you want a poster boy of these changes, look at Steam. Or the growing casual market. Connectivity through multimedia options on consoles and computers. Cloud gaming trying to become more popular and digital distribution increasingly becoming the norm. 

This is not really so much a mindset but rather the reality of the situation.

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well it has been that way regardless of what happens. In fact id argue it has been since 2007. The gaming public has changed in the past five-six years, and companies are looking for ways to go with those changes. 

Hell, you want a poster boy of these changes, look at Steam. Or the growing casual market. Connectivity through multimedia options on consoles and computers. Cloud gaming trying to become more popular and digital distribution increasingly becoming the norm. 

This is not really so much a mindset but rather the reality of the situation.

Connectivity is a big jump from "enforced connectivity."

A big jump. I don't think you can equate the two. One's the reality, the other is, mind-bogglingly, what SOME people are pushing for but thankfully a large number are opposing. A mindset.

It really isent a big jump. We have seen companies go for it for years now, and its only getting refined each time. Eventually it will be done and no one will complain because it works. Thats kinda the point i'm making here, as that is what progress tends to be. 

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

It really isent a big jump. We have seen companies go for it for years now, and its only getting refined each time. Eventually it will be done and no one will complain because it works. Thats kinda the point i'm making here, as that is what progress tends to be. 

I would argue that anything that is forced, rather than optional, is a H*LL of a big jump, if not in a physical sense then in a social sense.

I would argue that it most definitely is NOT getting "more refined" when the last game to do it, Diable III, was crippled with issues from the start.

I would argue that "something working" is not a judgement on which you can say whether people will complain or not, because it isn't the only factor.

I would argue that "progress" has never been forced. It is optional. When "progress" is forced, you've got yourself a serious problem. I can think of a few countries, a few instances...but I'm sure that's clear enough.

This is under the assumption progress is being forced though, when its not.

 The progress and refinement of online connectivity is there and most are happy with the online modes and leaderboards, drop in and out multiplayer and social connectivity. You are talking about always online being forced without consent, which I agree is not working yet. 

But it doesn't mean companies will stop trying to make it work. And one day  the public may agree it works, or makes the game better. Then its not being forced on anyone,  and that is the progress I am refering to. 

As a sidebar, I like the image change for your avatar. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 février 2013 - 05:47 .

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

This is under the assumption progress is being forced though, when its not.

 The progress and refinement of online connectivity is there and most are happy with the online modes and leaderboards, drop in and out multiplayer and social connectivity. You are talking about always online being forced without consent, which I agree is not working yet. 

But it doesn't mean companies will stop trying to make it work. And one day  the public may agree it works, or makes the game better. Then its not being forced on anyone,  and that is the progress I am refering to. 

As a sidebar, I like the image change for your avatar. 

At current, yes I agree it is not being forced. But what is being proposed in this thread calls for it to be mandatory. And to someone that doesn't want it, that means "forced."

And again, to return to Ubisoft, I think it's reather clear that the pulic doesn't want it.

Thanks.

No problem.

I would say that, considering EA is on record that they want some sort of socializing aspect in all of their games, that we do know to expect some sort of connectivity in Inquisition. It is more of a question on what it is and how its handled I feel, versus having it in or not.

The auction house idea I am against because it undermines performance in the game. I am for, however, online connectivity through co-op campaigns ala Flashpoints in The Old Republic, which I feel would be great side-adventures for custom-made characters under the inquisitors employ. 

It is a question of implementation of the idea for me, really. 

[LinksOcarina]

A particular idea that you may agree on or not. Connectivity through the phone is just another avenue that is fair implementation. The trading marketplace is not the best idea in the world, but I don't mind organization applications for phones or the PC. that doesn't cheapen the game in any way to me.

[bleetman]

I'm trying to think of a single service or system that would accompany an always online requirement that couldn't similarly be bundled with an optional online mode which would make me accept it as an added requirement, let alone view it as a positive thing I actively wanted. Drawing a blank, really.

Still, this is kind of unrelated to the thread. Imma shut up now D:

Modifié par bleetman, 19 février 2013 - 06:05 .