The future of games and consumers

[bcheero]

The future of games and consumers

As seen by Diablo 3 and many of Ubisoft's attempts at curbing the "problem" of piracy, it's quite interesting, yet disturbing, to what lengths developers (and publishers, in fact) will go to control the end user's gaming experience. No mods or any form of editing that would allow the end user to enhance experiences hinder the long term value of the product. While it sounds viable in theory, providing a service that is available at any time, the control over the user is quite shameful. While there are hackers and illegitimate exploits that some individuals use, the vast majority of the core audience playing the game probably wouldn't do those particular things. Is this what the future of the industry looks like? Instead of innovating and allowing developers to enhance their game's value, we have many publishers wishing to turn a quick buck and treating their customers as nothing but brain dead consumers of their product.

Is this what the digital age has in store for individuals like you and me?

 

[Garrison72]

Yep, it's what they have in store. In the not too distant future, all mods will be considered illegal and every publisher will demand that gamers *censored* to which millions of dupes will dutifully concede.

 

[bcheero]

Yep, it's what they have in store. In the not too distant future, all mods will be considered illegal and every publisher will demand that gamers lick their hairy balls, to which millions of dupes will dutifully concede.

Straight to the point. I like that,Slimgrin.

But really, if that's the future, I won't want to be a part of it.

 

[Garrison72]

Not everyone likes it, hence my reputation here.

 

[bcheero]

Holy moly! I'm so sorry about that!!! I didn't mean to spam at all. My phone wasn't registering my message the first time.

 

[Corylea.723]

Holy moly! I'm so sorry about that!!! I didn't mean to spam at all. My phone wasn't registering my message the first time.

Not to worry -- I took care of it.

 

[chromie92]

To make matters worse...EA looking to bring Battlefield Premium type service to more properties. Well thank goodness indie games, kickstarters and studios like CDProjekt are becoming more successful so I don't have to care as much.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

I think the future will be DRM free. But some publishers (not only in games industry, but in others too) have hard time grasping this idea. Luckily CDPR are one of the bright examples.

 

[Sirnaq]

You are asking about industry or just gaming? In my opinion industry will just collapse in few years but independent devs still be alive and kicking. You can't murder no drm games as long as there is demand for them (hope i wrote that properly, im not english speaker).

 

[norolim]

You are asking about industry or just gaming? In my opinion industry will just collapse in few years but independent devs still be alive and kicking.

That would, paradoxically, be a good thing for for us, gamers, who want quality, challenge and fair treatment, things we so rarely get these days. I don't see it happening, though. Diablo 3, a game with the most intrusive DRM in the history of the industry, sold over 3.5 million copies in the first day and over 6 million during the first week. This is the state of the industry: no matter how much crap the publishers serve the gamers...the gamers will eat it and ask for more. This is the price of the popularity gaming enjoys right now. Gamers are just your regular consumers. And regular consumers, as a whole, are gullible, vulnerable to advertising and hype and have very low standards and short memories. And with the likes of EA threatening that they will turn the industry into a shopping mall I don't see a bright future for quality gaming. I don't think I will be buying new games in 10 tears time. That's why I'm not in a rush to play all the games on my shelf. I'm building quite a backlog of games that will probably last me to the end of may days, and I won't care about the new Mass Effect 25 free-to-play client. True, I will miss all the shiny new graphics, but I won't mind. If I want to see sth nice, I will go watch a movie with Saoirse Ronan.

 

[Sirnaq]

Yeah but look at Inexile, their game was founded by fans alone. There is still demand for quality products, even though quality products are niche these days. Diablo 3 hasn't intrusive drm, it's just not singleplayer game anymore. Blizard just made another mmo, and marketed it as normal game. It's like complaining that so many people bought and played world of warcraft. What's important is that industry most likely decide to abandon singleplayer games at all. This i call "collapse of industry" or more precisely singleplayer part of industry, and there goes independent devs with singleplayer games. You see, big companies figured out that you can't just throw at customer low quality singleplayer games and quality games = "less monis 4 us".

 

[norolim]

No, if something is marketed as a singleplayer and indeed has a big component that is played on your own, it is a singleplayer game. And always online is an intrusive DRM for a singleplayer game. You can bend the reality as long as you want. The facts are there.

What's important is that industry most likely decide to abandon singleplayer games at all. This i call "collapse of industry".

According to what definition? It is merely a shift of focus. The industry with all its big players and a majority of the consumers remains in place. Let's not invent definitions. Besides, I don't think singleplayer games will vanish completely. You'll just have to play them on the publisher's server. A server they will have the right to shut down as soon as they deem it unprofitable.

There is however one more factor to be considered in this puzzle. The rise of cloud gaming. And to tell you the truth I have absolutely no idea what kind of impact it will have on the industry. It may kill consoles, it may be a blessing or a disaster...we'll have to wait and see.

 

[wichat]

From Blizzard siteweb:

Open Game: Change your game into a publicly-accessible game that anyone can join. For information on public games, look to the Playing With Friends section.

And it goes on.. with a detail guide of the game BUT in any moment it is explain that you MUST play singleplayer ON-LINE.



What's New in Diablo III?

We're proud of the original Diablo's dark, moody atmosphere and engaging item-grabbing gameplay. Diablo II added more environmental and monster variety, more diverse classes, and a number of unique elements that have since become synonymous with the franchise (like gems, runes, set items, etc.).

Both games established the series' hallmarks: randomized levels, the relentless onslaught of monsters and events in a perpetually fresh world, unique quests, tons of items, and an epic story about the High Heavens, the Burning Hells, and the hapless and heroic human beings caught between them.

Diablo III is the inheritor of this legacy, and we've added even more elements to the game to keep building on our vision for the world of Sanctuary.


PvP Arenas


In past Diablo games, fighting with other players acquired something of a storied history. In Diablo III, we wanted to create a more formalized play-space for heroes to test their mettle. Diablo III's arenas are designed exclusively for PvP combat, and so they have different level layouts and rates of health spawning, along with matchmaking to ensure more evenly balanced battles. PvP arenas will be available post-launch.


And that's for me is a BIG lie to fans of Diablo and Diablo 2. Won't critizice its quality but its a lack of respect to who we were expecting for more than12 years... Sorry.

 

[Sirnaq]

You'll just have to play them on the publisher's server. A server they will have the right to shut down as soon as they deem it unprofitable.

And you think that everyone is blind sheep as all blizzard customers? I rather stop gaming at all or go full pirate than buy games with always on drm. The point is there will be always people who want buy games without drms so there is always money for potential new company like gog.com. Also im not bending any reality. There is no singleplayer game that require loging into server. Diablo 3 is not singleplayer in any way, shape or form. Ofcourse, you CAN play alone, you also can play alone in wow (not going to any party just killing mobs) that doesn't make it singleplayer.

 

[norolim]

And you think that everyone is blind sheep as all blizzard customers?

Most are, unfortunately

I rather stop gaming at all or go full pirate than buy games with always on drm.

Pirating is not the way. It is partially responsible for what we have to put up with now. My hope, with the recent developments is that we won't have to stop gaming. That as you say, there will be kickstarter, smaller and indie developers to feed us with games we like.

There is no singleplayer game that require loging into server. Diablo 3 is not singleplayer in any way, shape or form.

I guess your definition of singleplayer is a bit different than the standard one. But hey, that's your right

 

[Sirnaq]

You can play alone =/= singleplayer. Its like saying left 4 dead is singleplayer because there is option to play singleplayer even though game was ment to play in multiplayer.

 

[Aaden]

There is no singleplayer game that require loging into server.

Wut? What about Ubilauncher titles like Assassin's Creed 2, Splinter Cell Conviction or The Settlers 7? While it might be argued that the latter's competitive game mode screams multiplayer game - the other two clearly have their focus on the single player experience. Still you have to log in, stay online and receive game data from the server while playing.

I don't have an universal opinion on the matter - among others, it's a matter of how much service I am offered in exchange for being online and how much of an obstacle it is to me - so I'm not trying to argue for or against it, but claiming that there are no singleplayer titles with "always online" DRM is just plain wrong.

 

[Sirnaq]

Wut? What about Ubilauncher titles like Assassin's Creed 2, Splinter Cell Conviction or The Settlers 7? While it might be argued that the latter's competitive game mode screams multiplayer game - the other two clearly have their focus on the single player experience. Still you have to log in, stay online and receive game data from the server while playing.

I don't have an universal opinion on the matter - among others, it's a matter of how much service I am offered in exchange for being online and how much of an obstacle it is to me - so I'm not trying to argue for or against it, but claiming that there are no singleplayer titles with "always online" DRM is just plain wrong.

Ok maybe i was wrong about server connection but my point stil stand. Game designed to play multiplayer = multiplayer game no matter if you play alone or not. Game designed to play singleplayer = singleplayer game. Diablo 3 was designed to play multiplayer therefore it's multiplayer game. Also look at ubisoft games NO ONE buys them because they are singleplayer games with RETARDED drm. Only reason why people buys diablo 3 is because it's diablo mmo add nostalgia googles to it and viola.

 

[Aditya]

Ubisoft makes great games, only the drm and theor screwing up with PC is the big problem. The server connecting shit was only there in AC2 and after the big controversy not present.And as for Diablo 3, agreed with the above user. Its a shame why is it even called Action RPG when there is no RPG in it at all

 

[yayodeanno.831]

The future of gaming? Browser gaming. You will still need expensive, powerful hardware tho, cause that's how capitalism works