4 ms·

This is the future of gaming. Then I guess I won't be gaming anymore. Not that I do much now, and I've mostly quit for other unrelated reasons, but if is the f

This is the future of gaming. Then I guess I won't be gaming anymore. Not that I do much now, and I've mostly quit for other unrelated reasons, but if is the future of gaming, you can count me, and I'm sure many others, out. I used to game a lot. I used to spend a not insignificant amount of money on games. If the publishers want to basically steal my money and call me the thief, then they can forget about having me as a customer.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Actually it is the future, and like you I too don't buy games much any more. Your kids or your peer's kids though will play games this way because it is the only way to get them and they will think its 'normal.' Eventually you'll be called an 'old timer' and derided for all your comments about how in your day when you bought a game it didn't need to download 4GB of 'patches' nor did it require Internet access to run. What is most curious though, is whether or not this new world order is stable long term. Other creative works publishers like movie studios or musicians, can capture the long tail of revenue for their products long after the initial 'rush' but for game studios and other 'active' products there is this continual draw on the host companies resources to keep servers alive or what not. So eventually keeping a game 'alive' starts generating negative money. And killing a game generates negative customer sentiment. So the combination might overwhelm the business model. Only time will tell.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I agree. When I said this was the future, I wasn't saying it with any cheer. We had a pretty good run for a while there, though.
- treeface 14y ago
  There are countless games coming out that don't use draconian DRM. "The future of gaming" is a lot less monolithic than the two of you would suggest.
  - yareally 14y ago
    Yep. I think this is the future of gaming according to EA and a few of the other traditional AAA studios. Not every Publisher is this hostile to users or treats them the way EA or Ubisoft does. Publishers such as Valve, Square Enix, 2k Games have been friendly and respectful to PC gamers for the most part in recent years by using only Steam DRM and avoiding too much "consolitis[1]" in PC games (some of 2k games titles are iffy, but overall they have more hits than misses). Then we have all the really great indie games coming out, like the successor to Dungeon Keeper Series[2] that looks good enough to be AAA (though no where near the price range), but is crowd funded. We also have a great alternative to Blizzard's Diablo with Torchlight. Some studios will go the way of EA and others I think will be the opposing side. Who will win though I think is up for debate, but I prefer to be optimistic. [1] http://www.firingsquad.com/games/Firing_Points_Consolitis/ http://www.firingsquad.com/games/Firing_Points_Consolitis/ [2] https://wftogame.com/ https://wftogame.com/
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "So eventually keeping a game 'alive' starts generating negative money" When a game nears that point, the publishers can theoretically push a patch that removes the "must be online" components and/or allows connection to self-run servers, so the community can keep it alive. I'm aware of a few companies actually doing something like this. Years ago, Parallax/Outrage/Volition (of the Descent series) went out of their way to give the community the assets they'd need to keep the series alive.
  - ConceptJunkie 14y ago
    Perhaps, but companies like that are the exception, not the rule. I fully expect that companies like EA don't give a warm bucket of spit about anything past the initial phase during which a game will be sold.
    - idunno246 14y ago
      EA actually did this for a fb game: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/20/dragon-age-legends-no-longer-online-but-playable-offline-for-fr/ http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/20/dragon-age-legends-no-long...
      - illuminate 14y ago
        A FB game that was used as marketing for their AAA game is not the same as "freeing" a AAA game, though.
- tsotha 14y ago
  Killing a game does generate negative customer sentiment, but if you have a game that hardly anybody plays anymore it's probably not enough to keep them from pulling the plug. My guess is for "cult favorites" after some period of time they'll just push out a patch that removes the DRM and turn the servers off. Then it's just a question of losing multiplayer.
- pms 14y ago
  I'm not sure if this is the future. Perhaps for the masses, to some point, as you write. However, I already find myself uninterested in any large productions, cause in the end they are indeed all the same... I gamed a lot in the past. Nowadays, I am buying Humble Indie Bundles, and I am truly excited about Kickstarter funded games. It seems to me, that the real creativity is transitioning to there.
Apocryphon 14y ago
Kickstarter-funded indie games and revivals led by '90s-era developer icons will be viable alternatives.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Actually it is the future, and like you I too don't buy games much any more. Your kids or your peer's kids though will play games this way because it is the only way to get them and they will think its 'normal.' Eventually you'll be called an 'old timer' and derided for all your comments about how in your day when you bought a game it didn't need to download 4GB of 'patches' nor did it require Internet access to run. What is most curious though, is whether or not this new world order is stable long term. Other creative works publishers like movie studios or musicians, can capture the long tail of revenue for their products long after the initial 'rush' but for game studios and other 'active' products there is this continual draw on the host companies resources to keep servers alive or what not. So eventually keeping a game 'alive' starts generating negative money. And killing a game generates negative customer sentiment. So the combination might overwhelm the business model. Only time will tell.

danielweber 14y ago
I agree. When I said this was the future, I wasn't saying it with any cheer. We had a pretty good run for a while there, though.
treeface 14y ago
There are countless games coming out that don't use draconian DRM. "The future of gaming" is a lot less monolithic than the two of you would suggest.
- yareally 14y ago
  Yep. I think this is the future of gaming according to EA and a few of the other traditional AAA studios. Not every Publisher is this hostile to users or treats them the way EA or Ubisoft does. Publishers such as Valve, Square Enix, 2k Games have been friendly and respectful to PC gamers for the most part in recent years by using only Steam DRM and avoiding too much "consolitis[1]" in PC games (some of 2k games titles are iffy, but overall they have more hits than misses). Then we have all the really great indie games coming out, like the successor to Dungeon Keeper Series[2] that looks good enough to be AAA (though no where near the price range), but is crowd funded. We also have a great alternative to Blizzard's Diablo with Torchlight. Some studios will go the way of EA and others I think will be the opposing side. Who will win though I think is up for debate, but I prefer to be optimistic. [1] http://www.firingsquad.com/games/Firing_Points_Consolitis/ http://www.firingsquad.com/games/Firing_Points_Consolitis/ [2] https://wftogame.com/ https://wftogame.com/
lotharbot 14y ago
> "So eventually keeping a game 'alive' starts generating negative money" When a game nears that point, the publishers can theoretically push a patch that removes the "must be online" components and/or allows connection to self-run servers, so the community can keep it alive. I'm aware of a few companies actually doing something like this. Years ago, Parallax/Outrage/Volition (of the Descent series) went out of their way to give the community the assets they'd need to keep the series alive.
- ConceptJunkie 14y ago
  Perhaps, but companies like that are the exception, not the rule. I fully expect that companies like EA don't give a warm bucket of spit about anything past the initial phase during which a game will be sold.
  - idunno246 14y ago
    EA actually did this for a fb game: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/20/dragon-age-legends-no-longer-online-but-playable-offline-for-fr/ http://www.joystiq.com/2012/06/20/dragon-age-legends-no-long...
    - illuminate 14y ago
      A FB game that was used as marketing for their AAA game is not the same as "freeing" a AAA game, though.
tsotha 14y ago
Killing a game does generate negative customer sentiment, but if you have a game that hardly anybody plays anymore it's probably not enough to keep them from pulling the plug. My guess is for "cult favorites" after some period of time they'll just push out a patch that removes the DRM and turn the servers off. Then it's just a question of losing multiplayer.
pms 14y ago
I'm not sure if this is the future. Perhaps for the masses, to some point, as you write. However, I already find myself uninterested in any large productions, cause in the end they are indeed all the same... I gamed a lot in the past. Nowadays, I am buying Humble Indie Bundles, and I am truly excited about Kickstarter funded games. It seems to me, that the real creativity is transitioning to there.

Apocryphon 14y ago

Kickstarter-funded indie games and revivals led by '90s-era developer icons will be viable alternatives.