The industry gets a lot wrong but I really love the focus on multiplayer. I hope they add multiplayer coop to this game as Cyberpunk is an inherently COOP RPG experience.
I have it the exact opposite
I really think that this change towards multiplayer games is bad, especially when talking rpgs. So many games seems to be ruined by it and turned into action rpgs with very dumbed down fetching quests. Which is fine if that is what you are after, but I haven't seen any good "real" RPG multiplayer game yet. Maybe divinity would be, but haven't tried that in multiplayer.It would be sad, if Cyberpunk simply turns into yet another GTA or Farcry type of game, would much rather see it turn more into something like Mass effect. Despite it being a cyberpunk universe and all, im personally a bit tired of games where you just go around and shoot everything that moves. Even though I think the first trailer of Cyberpunk looked a bit much like a GTA game, especially the "random" car chase encounter, which seems to occur out of the blue, without any responds from police or anything or how these people knew who you were to begin with as V killed everyone in the apartment, that got me a bit worried. But I have hope from what they said in the trailer and from future trailers, that they actually focus on the RPG elements and story more than action and that we hopefully get to see more of that soon.
Last edited:
I don't think so. We're already in the 2019 and the stock prices of major gaming companies didn't crash as the author of the video expected. If you look from a much wider perspective, you'll notice that they're in fact still a few times higher then 4-5 years ago. The decrease of stock value has clearly stopped. Also I don't thing that an AAA gaming industry crisis would have a good impact on CDPR. The company is present on the stock market as well.
This type of stuff is certainly annoying, I don't support how it's being handled (on principle). But I could honestly care less. There are so many companies that do this, and there are arguably as many benefits as there are negatives with its existence. As far as I'm concerned, free-flow of information needs to work both ways, or it's simply a facade. I'd rather have a transparent system than the manipulative one we have right now, so I'm willing to be the first one to give without complaint. My insistance would be that any business that collect such data makes it known that they'll be doing so openly, instead of this sneaking about. They should take the initial hit and try to prove it's worthwhile. But that requires both integrity and honor. Might limit profits, too.
I agree, but that's what advertising has always been. This is where I say that half the responsibility falls on the consumer. I must make informed purchases. I must spend my money wisely. If something sounds too good to be true...guess what? Sometimes it's better to go without.
Conversely, I think it's past time for there to be tangible penalties when a company sells titles (pre-orders), then fails to deliver the product as advertised. Long delays? No problem. Knowingly releasing things in a disfunctional state in an attempt to cash in even more before the job is done -- that should be punished more harshly.
As for "how", that answer will be as different as the number of titles out there. I've directed the same show 4-5 times in some cases: different times, different cast and crew, different venues...totally different experience each time. It's creative work. Takes on a life of its own. It really has little to do with the IP itself.
Interesting consideration. I'd agree that it can be (and has been) used that way to "get'em hooked, then squeeze'em dry". But free content is free content. Using that as an incentive for people to play my game instead of other games is part of any market. Businesses can't be faulted for trying to make a profit -- that's what business is. I'd only call it "taking advantage" if I'm intentionally trying to find a way to offer a fraction of what I could in an attempt to charge people many times what my product is actually worth.
Games a a service -- noooooo-ooo-o-o-o...!
Absolutely not.Games are not "services". Games are products. (Online marketplaces are services.) Movies are not "services". (The movie theatres are.) TV shows are not "services". (The network provider is.) Books are not "services". (The book store is.) In my opinion, the entire approach is completely fraudulent, trying to directly find an excuse to charge people for nothing.
My model is based on keeping both investors and cash-flow in check, ensuring devs have the time they need to focus on manageable chunks of huge projects in stages, and that each stage provides ongoing revenue to continue funding...
...as opposed to heavyweight investors pouring huge sums of money into a venture, expecting even bigger returns fast, then pressuring devs to overreach in an attempt to get it done by wholly unrealistic deadlines, all of which harms the player in the end as the product will often fail to deliver or suffer from numerous issues.
The present system invites disaster. It lures in investors that are there only to cash the @#$% in -- they don't care for the product, the consumer, or the future of any individual company. (Not all of them -- the ones that are there for the wrong reasons.) So, there needs to be a system that makes it far less appealing for them to get involved, as they know that payouts will be more modest. A staggered development cycle like that will also keep the studio's ambitions in check. Rather than biting off faaar more than they can chew, they'll focus on building complete mechanics into full functionality, through planned steps, then working them into a much more ambitious whole. And those chunks are not 50+ hour-long, mega-blockbusters. They're smaller, more compact experiences that, when all combined, create a solid system that may offer hundreds of hours of gameplay utilizing depth and mechanics that could never have been built "all at once".
I used Star Citizen because it's the perfect example of what happens when a vision tries to include everything-and-the-kitchen-sink upfront. Things like that become giant, unmanageable, stressful money-sinks with too many moving parts that just...never seem to come together correctly.
And that's why money can be as much a harm as a help. Too much of anything is not good. A ton of money creates the illusion that you can "afford" anything. Not how it works. Some things simply aren't for sale. In the end, there will be people, spending time and effort, not money, to achieve great things. You can't "pay for that". You can only ensure that the people have what they need to be successful. Once they do, no additional money is going to help anything. Only add distraction. Add in more demands, and the people are going to be just as tired and prone to errors, whether they're making a little or a lot.
Just because I can, doesn't mean I should.
It's not an ideal. It's a matter of management. If I set a reasonable goal, I'll be far more likely to reach it. If I overreach, I tend not to get what I wanted. If I only deal with people that share my vision, things stay on track. If I invite contention, I get problems. If I ask the people working for me what they need, I can provide them with it. If I simply make demands, there's no guarantee they will be met. If I build for sustainability, that's what will be built. If I build to make a ton of money up-front, that's all I'll wind up with. I take a risk either way, and I reap what I sow.
It is not idealistic in any way. It's simply cause and effect.
Last edited:
I don't think people should ever be to careful with how and where they share their user information. Unfortunately a lot of people seems to not care to much and flood the internet with everything from their personal life. It have been shown time after time, that these information are being exploited by companies. The whole facebook thing and if I recall correctly I think there were a case some years ago with a company in US who used data to single out people that had lost children in car accident or something, so they could contact them and sell their crap to them, its some time ago, so might not remember exactly what they did.
Even when companies seems "transparent" such as facebook and people trust them, information is getting misused. And people have no clue where or how they are used, and once they are on the internet or in some data storage facility somewhere, its basically impossible to get rid off again. A small amount of the data collected is so companies can give you a service, the rest is so they can categorize you and marketing stuff for you. This is business and valuable information about potential customers, habits and so forth. They don't do it to be nice or deliver a service
If you look at online games, where you have limited inventory, its because it fill up storage and cost money for the company to store it. So reducing the amount of data will save them money, however storing personal data about people, is not a huge problem for most companies if that can be turned into profit.
The last election in US there were rumors (might even have been confirmed) that data from Facebook I think it was? were used to try to manipulate voters. If they didn't think this would work, why would they bother? So if you can bombard people in doubt with stuff about this and that, it can eventually make them change their views. I my self, is one of the few that is not on facebook, not so much due to the data thing, but I just don't bother with it. But all my friends are, and remember asking one of them about this. That since this wouldn't make him drop Facebook, How much personally data it would require for him to do so? And he thought about it and he honestly didn't know, to me that is pretty scary as Im pretty sure, most people feel like him, they simply don't care. That something so fundamental for any democracy as the right to vote, is being manipulated one way or another, still doesn't make people care. Which I think is fairly dangerous, because its not done in a way so you change your mind from one moment to the next, but over a long period of time, by feeding you stuff, potentially based on personal data, that you might not even know you are sharing.
And even if there is a sort of transparency, a very few people will care to read how this data is being used, or by potential third parties and how they intend to use it. The way all this works, is not made or meant to be transparent for people.
From my own life, just reasonably which doesn't have to do with information, but a lack of transparency from company to customer. Is about my mother, which as so many other people parents are not that good at all this computer stuff. But she went to an online shop to buy something, so to place the order she had to agree to the terms of the shop, which is fairly common, so as everyone else does, she just checked the box and accepted. This were 6 month ago and a few day ago, I spoke with her and she had noticed that she had been paying a fixed amount of money to that company for the last 6 month for something she had no clue what was, which apparently as she had accepted the terms, had also agreed to sign up for a service or something, without any noticeable warning. Im pretty sure that is illegal in the EU at least.
So companies should never be trusted in my opinion and should definitely not demand or have access to any information about people than absolutely minimum, they exist to make money, regardless of how they may appear. Obviously some more trust worthy than others, so to support a solution where we need a mutual transparent system, where information flows both way, i find a bit worrying, i think
Last edited:
I don't think people should ever be to careful with how and where they share their user information. Unfortunately a lot of people seems to not care to much and flood the internet with everything from their personal life. It have been shown time after time, that these information are being exploited by companies. The whole facebook thing and if I recall correctly I think there were a case some years ago with a company in US who used data to single out people that had lost children in car accident or something, so they could contact them and sell their crap to them, its some time ago, so might not remember exactly what they did.
Even when companies seems "transparent" such as facebook and people trust them, information is getting misused. And people have no clue where or how they are used, and once they are on the internet or in some data storage facility somewhere, its basically impossible to get rid off again. A small amount of the data collected is so companies can give you a service, the rest is so they can categorize you and marketing stuff for you. This is business and valuable information about potential customers, habits and so forth. They don't do it to be nice or deliver a service
Of course it's all about turning a profit. And, pretty much everyone I know is interested in buying stuff. In the end, whether companies are looking to manipulate consumers so they can milk them for every possible dollar, or whether a company is truly trying to learn what most people prefer to provide the best possible products and services...the end result will be the same:
There will be more reliable information available, and people are more likely to wind up with stuff they appreciate.
No matter what, someone is going to try to take advantage of that. Nothing anyone can do is going to stop that from happening. What we can do is create enforceable consequences as a response when it does happen.
All very true, but that Facebook scandal, regardless of how ethically questionable, resulted in noticeably more people going to vote. That was the end result. Manipulative? Absolutely. Dishonestly handled? Absolutely. Productive and pro-active? Absolutely. Plus, it proved just how influential such social media could be.
The part about the entire issue that makes me cross my arms and go "
" is the fact that they did it without notifying anyone (especially the authorities) about what they were planning and why. I'm not someone that humors "the ends justify the means". Very dangerous mentality. Yeah, this type of thing needs to be clamped down on. It's a form of co-opting at its core. As far as I'm concerned, if a company sells "A", they should not be allowed to tack "B" and "C" onto it. "Paper-clipping" additional products or services onto the very clearly intended purchase should be illegal. Companies should be required to directly ask if a customer would like other specific things.
So companies should never be trusted in my opinion and should definitely not demand or have access to any information about people than absolutely minimum, they exist to make money, regardless of how they may appear. Obviously some more trust worthy than others, so to support a solution where we need a mutual transparent system, where information flows both way, i find a bit worrying, i think
I agree. However, it's basically a moot point. For as far as human history stretches, people have been gathering information they're not privy to without the knowledge or consent of others. Technology makes it so easy to do so, it's just silly. No one can really stop it from happening.
Therefore, I'd turn the weakness into a strength. Forget trying to prevent it. Force the businesses to throw the doors open and reveal what they've taken. If everyone has access to all of it, no one has any unfair advantage.
Plus, that digital footprint applies to everyone, businesses included. It's next to impossible to do any sort of snooping and not leave a trail. Far too much time and effort being spent trying to prevent the inevitable, not enough time coming up with adequate punishments to deter those that abuse it. (That plays into the hands of people with malicious intent.)
You need to play divinity 2 with friends, it's super fun and the journey feel so much more incredible when you make to the end and one of you has to ascend. It becomes a debate of who's worthy and If words dont work, it becomes a battle to prove who is worthy.I have it the exact opposite
It would be sad, if Cyberpunk simply turns into yet another GTA or Farcry type of game, would much rather see it turn more into something like Mass effect. Despite it being a cyberpunk universe and all, im personally a bit tired of games where you just go around and shoot everything that moves. Even though I think the first trailer of Cyberpunk looked a bit much like a GTA game, especially the "random" car chase encounter, which seems to occur out of the blue, without any responds from police or anything or how these people knew who you were to begin with as V killed everyone in the apartment, that got me a bit worried. But I have hope from what they said in the trailer and from future trailers, that they actually focus on the RPG elements and story more than action and that we hopefully get to see more of that soon.
Also space station 13 is a super fun multiplayer rpg but its really dated.
My point was not that its about one company getting an advantages over another. I personally couldn't care less
its about private information willing or unwillingly being gathered by companies and used to "manipulate" or take advances of people. For a lot, if not most, this is not a huge problem, but you constantly hear about people being stressed, depressed and suffers from all sorts of issues, which might be tricked into varies things by companies, knowing how to get a hold of them, I don't mean it like a conspiracy thing. But its basically the same when EA tries to push loot boxes and gambling elements into their games. For a lot of people gambling is sort of like being an alcoholic, the rush of gambling, the chance of getting that special items you want and so forth. Young kids not being able to really understand, the effect of this and what it means. The reason EA and so many others does it, is because they know that they can exploit a certain amount of people, that are willing to buy into this, probably also why they have no issues when it comes to trying to defend their reason for doing it and even going through courts and so forth to make it legal for them to do it.Its bad enough in the gaming industry, I don't want to suddenly have random companies contacting me based on some medical or psychology data they have access to, its bad enough with commercials already being targeted at you. Even though most of the time they are so way off that it doesn't matter.
So all these information is taken from your computer, mobile phone and so forth and no one have any clue what a certain company might find of interest and what information they gather.
I would assume that for instant health information for health insurance companies would be pretty interesting, imagine if these information were on the internet for all companies to use as they see fit. That would be fairly scary
Post automatically merged:
Im actually in the process of going through it on hardest difficulty, since it been some time I played it, I actually managed to get killed in the tutorial
Best of luck, and make sure to save the cat.My point was not that its about one company getting an advantages over another. I personally couldn't care less
Its bad enough in the gaming industry, I don't want to suddenly have random companies contacting me based on some medical or psychology data they have access to, its bad enough with commercials already being targeted at you. Even though most of the time they are so way off that it doesn't matter.
So all these information is taken from your computer, mobile phone and so forth and no one have any clue what a certain company might find of interest and what information they gather.
I would assume that for instant health information for health insurance companies would be pretty interesting, imagine if these information were on the internet for all companies to use as they see fit. That would be fairly scary
Post automatically merged:
Im actually in the process of going through it on hardest difficulty, since it been some time I played it, I actually managed to get killed in the tutorial
I manage that, trying to keep the squirrel on the bone cat alive who tries to save the world from the acorn, amazing character looking forward to see where his story goes
My point was not that its about one company getting an advantages over another. I personally couldn't care less
Its bad enough in the gaming industry, I don't want to suddenly have random companies contacting me based on some medical or psychology data they have access to, its bad enough with commercials already being targeted at you. Even though most of the time they are so way off that it doesn't matter.
So all these information is taken from your computer, mobile phone and so forth and no one have any clue what a certain company might find of interest and what information they gather.
I would assume that for instant health information for health insurance companies would be pretty interesting, imagine if these information were on the internet for all companies to use as they see fit. That would be fairly scary
I hear you. I wasn't speaking of just company vs. company; I was talking across the spectrum. If there was a way to simply make other companies or individuals stop doing that, I'd be all for it. I simply argue that it's not possible. If a security system could be created that prevented anyone from breaching it at any level...then the individuals controlling the security system would hold total power over all information everywhere. That would be disastrous. If we leave things as they are, information can be stolen on the sly, and there's no check or balance concerning what's done with it. That's already the problem. If we simply make it so that all information online is available to anyone who asks, it balances the scales. Now, anyone trying to take advantage will need to do it in broad daylight.
No matter what, people are going to be upset about it. Honestly, I don't see how that's any different than the world has ever been. All that changes is that people will need to be careful about how they're presenting themselves online, just like we all do in day-to-day life in the waking world. To balance this, laws will have to be written (and globally accepted, too) that will dictate limits and how offenders are handled. And they'll need to be enforced.
If we keep things the way they are now, internet activity will continue to be largely a free-for-all. Anyone who knows how will be able to steal data from anyone else, and there will be almost no way to respond to it. Everyone for themselves. That means the people with best method of theft rule the roost.
End result is: the internet is out now. It can't really be taken back. It could be destroyed...but I'm very sure that would cause far more problems than it could ever hope to fix. All we can do is try to make the best of the way things are. Fighting that reality will simply mean those who choose to embrace it get huge lead. Governments can't stop the data from flowing, but they can direct the free-flow to constructive ends. (And come down hard on people that try to abuse it.)
Im not sure, I fully understand you. Its sounds to me that your point is, that since all these things are happening now, we need to "accept" it and handle it by being more transparent? So since people can hack varies informations now, it would be better if for example every persons personal health data were available, so companies and institutes could request them as they saw fit, but the different would be that everyone would be able to see that a certain company had requested your data? or did I misunderstand you?
I don't share you view on the security system example, some data is sensitive and should be protected. So were it possible to make a system that couldn't be hacked, there would be lots of ways to insure that such information could not be controlled by single individuals or companies. Simply by allowing certain government departments, law enforcement (even though they have been caught doing it as well) access to such data should it be needed or that data couldn't be accessed without some sort of approval from someone else, so there are lots of ways to make sure data could be used in a responsible way with a highly secure system. It sounds a bit like throwing in the towel, and just give up all personal data, because people could hack, obtain or get access to it anyway?
Most companies will respect laws, if they risk getting huge fines and lawsuits. So doing what they are already doing now is a good start. I don't think Facebook or all the other companies that have been caught misusing personal data like having to go to court, so keep adjusting and applying laws against it, will help against most companies I think.
I think you're understanding me, by the sound of it. Where I think my thoughts differ are on the concept of "sensitive information". What I call into massive question is: what's really "sensitive"? Account numbers, passwords, private correspondence between people, etc. -- of course, no one should be able to get at these things, and they should be protected. Trouble is, they're simply not. I've had my own identity stolen twice, even with all the "security features" that existed. And what was the response both times? Big shrug from pretty much everyone. Lots of "terribly sorry" and "that's very unfortunate to hear"...and absolutely nothing was actually done. I changed my passwords, chopped up my credit cards and ordered new ones, and the thieves got away scot-free. There was no practical investigation nor consequence (only inconvenience for myself and a few others that helped me change everything that needed to change). No massive damage either.
So...what did all of those "security features" actually do? Nada. They're barely a deterrent. Whether or not someone is victimized has more to do with completely random chance than anything else. Any security system can be bypassed. Doesn't hurt to have it, but I don't rely on them much anymore.
I'd argue that other information many people want to call "sensitive" really isn't. Websites I visit, purchase history, amount of money or time spent on this or that, even stuff like where I live, my phone number, or what sort of car I drive...isn't exactly top secret info. So I'd say the official stance should be: if you do something online, it's public info. Period. It is anyway. Whether we like it or not, that's exactly the data that's "stolen" by any program built to retrieve analytics, and virtually every website does it to some extent.
The major flaws with the present system are:
1.) Companies (or individuals) are using the data for the wrong reasons, and there is no consequence for such actions. Like certain gaming companies using such analysis to target specific psychologies and intentionally create irresponsible spending habits. Can't prevent them from getting the data, but where are the laws?
2.) All of the money being wasted trying to build up taller, thicker walls. The thieves will just come in with helicopters. Dome off the zone, and they'll dig a tunnel. Put a moat around it, and they'll walk right through the main gate while you're not looking. Lock everything up, and they'll come back with scuba gear and shovels. I mean, look at the number of big-name companies that have been successfully hacked. It's a waste of time and resources. And again, where's the response?
3.) Co-opting. (Certainly not pointing fingers at anyone, but just to make the point: ) there are a lot of people who want to claim "sensitive info / privacy violation" so that they can get away with something. In many cases, it's the major corporations and businesses, and they're very, very successful at it.
So my philosophy is: unlock every door. Once everyone's fridge is wide open, anyone trying to take something out of it is going to be in plain sight. If someone tries to take advantage, have the authorities on the spot. Stop trying to prevent issues and worry about resolving them. Especially when there's no anonymity, people behave surprisingly well.
Wow, this sounds pretty wicked, are they talking about something like this to happen? Like shutdown the internet.
Because yeah, I think world was better place before the internet, if it comes down to that, internet will be thrown under the bus for sure, at least partly.
Last edited:
Naw!
I simply mean it could be done. Technically, if we fried even a sizable minority of the major servers in the world, the net would be cut up enough to be non-functional. While certain websites would be just fine, things like business, shipping, travel, pretty much anything international would grind to a halt. The data loss would be irreconcilable. That would be near the top of my list of Very Bad Things._______________
And, just to refocus this squarely on the topic, what I was driving at there is that gaming companies are going to wind up with people's personal info. If they're trying to hide it, then there's a reason for all the sneaking about. It's mostly nonsensical, imo -- that type of stuff is more or less used to figure out things like whether I should sell on this marketplace or that one...whether another studio's approach is better than mine...or which project would be best to focus on next. In worse-case scenarios, the data is sold to advertisers, so they can target people with tailored pop-ups. In worst-case, someone steals a credit card number and commits fraud (...which can happen at any company that takes your credit card number). If it were legalized, it neutralizes the cutthroat competition, ensures clear regulations, and creates an authority to bring down the axe if warranted.
Interesting thoughts, don't think I have ever met anyone with such a view before
But still you like to see account numbers and so forth protected, but as you also say, we know that these once in a while gets stolen as well, so I can only assume that it would be just as meaningless trying to protect such information as well? In the end It doesn't really matter what is considered sensitive information or not, if they exist in the first place. Because security used to prevent passwords and account numbers being stolen, could be used to protect whatever information you would like.
If we cut to the bone, there is basically only two solutions, either things are as they are now, where certain informations are protected as best as we can or its the view as you say, that nothing is, meaning everything from credit card informations to emails should be accessable to everyone as these are public information if used on the internet. I fail to follow that view.
Obviously tracking down people that are stealing and using others identities are not that easy, as it could be anyone anywhere on earth and there are lots of tools available to hide ones true identity. So even for the police, its a time consuming and costly process, and with the amount of information being shared on the internet constantly, there is probably more new cases being generated than they can solve.
I do agree, that its a healthy view to see anything you are about to put on the internet as potential public information and that you are the best at preventing anything you wouldn't like to share with others, by simply not putting it there in the first place.
Where I fail to see your logic, is that you seem to look at online crime differently than non online. Because wouldn't it be just as logic to view it the same way. Meaning, since people break into each other houses, despite there being locked doors, alarm systems etc. It still happens. So why not keep your door unlocked when you go on holiday and leave all valuables in a bowl next to the entrance, so those breaking in could simply grab it from there not having to mess up your place searching for them?
I haven't read through most of this thread, since posts are mostly chock full of texts, but just wanted to drop in and say that I almost start to cry out of joy when I find out passionate game developers like the ones that made Kenshi game (which was put out in December I think). Just by seeing that game you can tell that this was a dream of one guy to make, and he sure did it in a couple of years and with a really rough start.
Anyway, I encourage Everyone who really values single-player RPG-strategy-something game that goes down in the deepest of the details just to bring you more fun stuff to do around to watch a review of Kenshi. You won't regret it.
Anyway, I encourage Everyone who really values single-player RPG-strategy-something game that goes down in the deepest of the details just to bring you more fun stuff to do around to watch a review of Kenshi. You won't regret it.
Interesting thoughts, don't think I have ever met anyone with such a view before
But still you like to see account numbers and so forth protected, but as you also say, we know that these once in a while gets stolen as well, so I can only assume that it would be just as meaningless trying to protect such information as well? In the end It doesn't really matter what is considered sensitive information or not, if they exist in the first place. Because security used to prevent passwords and account numbers being stolen, could be used to protect whatever information you would like.
If we cut to the bone, there is basically only two solutions, either things are as they are now, where certain informations are protected as best as we can or its the view as you say, that nothing is, meaning everything from credit card informations to emails should be accessable to everyone as these are public information if used on the internet. I fail to follow that view.
Obviously tracking down people that are stealing and using others identities are not that easy, as it could be anyone anywhere on earth and there are lots of tools available to hide ones true identity. So even for the police, its a time consuming and costly process, and with the amount of information being shared on the internet constantly, there is probably more new cases being generated than they can solve.
I do agree, that its a healthy view to see anything you are about to put on the internet as potential public information and that you are the best at preventing anything you wouldn't like to share with others, by simply not putting it there in the first place.
Where I fail to see your logic, is that you seem to look at online crime differently than non online. Because wouldn't it be just as logic to view it the same way. Meaning, since people break into each other houses, despite there being locked doors, alarm systems etc. It still happens. So why not keep your door unlocked when you go on holiday and leave all valuables in a bowl next to the entrance, so those breaking in could simply grab it from there not having to mess up your place searching for them?
Lol! I suppose it does sound like that, but I'm trying to restrain the online free-for-all, not encourage it. When I leave the house in real life, the doors are locked. The physical barrier will adequately prevent people from breaking in. Smashing through a window would likely catch attention. The complex has security cameras watching the neighborhood. Anyone who breaks-and-enters will certainly leave forensic evidence behind. The preventative measures and procedures for handling these things are both effective and efficient.
Online is different. Doors and walls don't exist. Can't put up any cameras. Any "forensic" evidence left behind will be almost wholly inconclusive. Only thing I can do is try to create a constant smoke screen to disguise who I am and what I'm doing. And technically, anything that's "stolen" is intangible. It's just information. A company "invading my privacy" online is not the same as a door-to-door salesman breaking into my home and rooting through my underwear drawer for loose change. It's more like them passing by and making some notes about how many packages are delivered every week, what time I leave for work and come home, and what sort of TV shows I watch, as they can see it through the window. Annoying? Yeah. But not really harmful or damaging. Given the nature of online activity, it will be impossible to stop businesses from gathering this info.
For things like bank accounts and whatnot, I'd rather their simply be a universal escrow system. I used stuff like this when I lived in the UAE, and it worked great. I receive a one-time-use credit card number for my purchase. I deposit that amount into the fund. I enter the number online, the money changes hands, and the credit card number is deactivated. If I need a refund, I have the record of the transaction, the return goes into a new escrow, and I simply deposit it back into my account. All of it was right through the bank. No muss, no fuss. Any thief who "steals" the info winds up with a dud credit card number; there's little to no chance that anyone will be able to act fast enough to catch the transaction in process. If they find out what I was buying...who cares?
That's what I mean about systems that embrace the reality of what the internet is. The above was a far better system than any "protection" or "encryption" method meant to "hide" my activity. It didn't bother. It just made it so that it was nigh impossible to take advantage of, even moving at the speed of the internet.
And, I'll cheer for the indie scene once again! I followed Kenshi for a bit -- really cool idea. I like Mount and Blade style games like that. I think it's great that so many people get the chance to build their designs now. (And, that title definitely fought to see light. It was originally Greenlit back in ~2012, I think. Great to know they got there!)
Also, check out Starsector if you like this style of thing! I've been playing this one for years, and it's excellent.
Every game is a product, but some games are also services. This includes especially online titles. You buy the base game (or use a f2p client) and then you can get more content, items, skins etc. Sometimes you have to pay a subscription to be able to play. This is clearly a form of service. Now when you divide a game to parts or modules and sell them separately, you're not far from that model. This is especially true if you decide to regularly provide new content. This would apply to movies, books and other products as well, if someone decided to divide them to parts in a similar way.
I think that you're proposing a financial model that to this point was used mostly in online games. It's not a good solution because it fragments games to parts in a more drastic way than DLCs do it. As Star Citizen shows it favors promises rather than actual development of the title. There are many features announced, but players receive only those which are less important. These features can be treated rather as a curiosity than something that provides actual gameplay value. How long the game has been in development? Which of the modules were finished and released to the players? I believe the developers of RSS have no interest in finishing the project. The money still flows. And I don't have a problem that players want to fund a huge project. I like crowdfunding because it gave us many projects that wouldn't have the opportunity to be released other way. I see a problem however when someone gathers $200 million, makes promises on releasing certain features and doesn't secure the funds to make them happen. This is the risk of module based games.
There's still traditional crowdfunding and early access. These ease the pressure on smaller developers without the necessity to divide games to chunks sold separately.
Are you so sure about that? Constant cash flow encourages to develop plans that may not be fulfilled due to certain reasons. This happens especially if you lose the view of general development plan and forget about the point you want to reach with your development process. When a game is divided to modules and each of the modules funds the next one, it's most likely that you'll loose criticism of your work and begin to make plans that will prolong the development to infinite amounts of time. And when the funding stops, players can be left with unfinished product. Functional but unfinished. It's worse than DLCs because it may result in lack of very important features that finished games have.
And all of this only if the project gets finished some day. Quite a tricky situation. Besides I doubt it will be financially wise for the players.
It's still a good example of what can happen if module based games become popular. There's a huge risk for the players in this situation and that's why I'm not enthusiastic about it.
To many "ifs" for my liking.
That's why I call it idealistic.
Fair enough to call the online functionality a service. But that's not what "games as a service" is aiming for, and I feel we've got plenty of evidence glaring like neon signs, highlighting exactly what the actual intent is.
A "service" is action that will be taken for an agreed-upon amount. You pay me, and I provide the service I described. If I don't, I owe you at least some of your money back. I'll take Anthem and FO76 as examples. Both games were supposed to be multiplayer experiences that offered XYZ mechanics and LMNO options in an online environment. Both games were delivered to players in a dysfunctional or outright non-functional state. Why and wherefore aside, the simple fact remains: the "service" was not provided as described. I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind at either company that the games were not ready to launch. They launched them intentionally to take advantage of the situation and maximize profits, even though they were not providing the "service" they had clearly agreed to. Bad. News.
Also, if you're paying a monthly subscription, then that money needs to be directed toward providing you with the service you're paying for first and foremost. But that's not what happens. Much of that money will be siphoned off to other projects, used to develop new content, or paid to investors -- not used to ensure the existing "service" is being provided as described. How many times have we seen multiple expansions for a game be released...companies simply closing their doors...or getting public reports of how amazing the last quarter was...but there are still bugs, broken mechanics, and connectivity issues that existed since the game's release? This is the equivalent of someone agreeing to paint my house, leaving patches all over, then trying to get me to pay for them to paint my garage and shed too. Well, they haven't finished painting the house yet! In return they shrug and start painting my neighbor's garage and shed instead, refusing to refund me for the incomplete service and charging me more if I want them to continue the work. Trouble. Brewing.
The whole "games as a service" approach is in massive fallacy. Games are not services. Setting a system up like that simply means that either a.) players will be given incomplete product at full price while companies claim that it's all "part of the service" as a flippant excuse for shoddy, incomplete, or intentionally exploitative work -- and/or b.) companies are eventually going to be formally called out for failing to provide the service as described and will lose millions when the legal precedent is finally established. Either outcome is going to severely harm the industry.
The approach is not specifically focused on either single- or multiplayer. It's focused on avoiding the need to bank on investors and heavyweight producers, while also ensuring that studios don't become too ambitious and overreach. (The example with Star Citizen is just one example...as I don't think it's really possible to argue that the project set realistic goals and managed an exorbitant amount of funding to ensure the development moved forward in an efficient and organized way.) It could just as easily apply to something like an indie title that tried to create "the biggest open world ever made!" Fact is, as technology increases in complexity, the amount of time, effort, and money it will take to deliver games at "acceptable and competitive" standards increases in kind. The (dare I say) old-fashioned mentality of "get it done fast, and get it done cheaply" isn't going to fly. When the tech was a matter of >100 thousand lines of code, and 15 people could get a full-blown, triple-A title out within a year? Sure. When titles are exceeding a million lines of code and require hundreds of people working internationally for 5+ years to deliver something that is considered "out-dated" when it releases...? Not so much anymore. The old system simply doesn't work well. It's becoming completely unstable and unsustainable.
What I'm suggesting is a new way of thinking about producing "great-big-mega-huge" games. Avoid shooting the moon and being happy if I land among the stars. Get to the dang moon! Stages. Get game elements built in parts. Release each stage as a stage: clear roadmap for players to follow and assist with. Don't start accruing investors that put huge sums of money into an outrageously ambitious project and expect massive payouts on their schedule -- even if it harms the players and/or the studio itself. Any investor would invest in only a stage at a time. Modest investments for modest returns; heavyweights need not apply. There may be no need for any investors at any stage. The thing might be entirely crowd-funded. Far more likely for a studio to finish and release smaller stages. About as likely as studios taking on a massive project, overreaching, and being shut down under the present system.
If a stage is achieved and released, the goal is met. It will be easier to identify how well things are working and what may need to change for the next stage. If a project happens to fail, players cannot claim they didn't get exactly what they paid for along the way. It simply balances the process, avoids crunch, lets studios operate much more independently, and optimizes feedback and revenue. (As opposed to maximizing revenue in order to pay parent concerns at the expense of virtually all feedback.)
Very sure. I can't speak first-hand about the gaming industry too much (I was mostly a content and copy writer for the studios I've worked with), but I can talk about showbiz, as it's very similar. I found game design to be sort of like stage production in an office setting. Difference is, the crazy deadlines of doing a big show are dictated by the venue. There's a block of time when we can go up, and it is followed by a block of time when the venue goes dark -- which is non-negotiable, as some other troupe or event has already rented the venue for the future. So we need to get everything (prod meetings, set / costume / lighting / sound designs, casting, call-backs, read-through, rehearsals, costume parade, publicity, tech, dress rearsals, polish, performance schedule, and strike) done like clockwork. And, we need to ensure the producers get the cut they want...or we likely won't be dealing with them again.
Similarly, the devs I know go through a similar type of "crunch"...but the reasons for it were kind of ridiculous to me. The only reason there were set-in-stone "deadlines" was because of some financial schedule, like a pencil factory needing to meet a quota to stay profitable. Other times, it was because someone simply wanted their money, and they weren't willing to wait. Can't do anything but shake my head. No reason for it to work like that. Obviously, it's no good if people are just lazing around, but I've not met any devs that weren't passionate about what they do. Sort of a lot of time and effort to put into a skill if one "doesn't really care about it".
Money in this process is a pain either way. Don't need that much to pull off art. I've directed shows in which I had the crew literally digging through the dumpsters for props materials, and the performance wound up breaking the all-time, box-office record for the venue. I've directed a show that started with over 1.2 million in the bank, and I couldn't convince the producers that their design wasn't going to work. They believed me when the show closed about a month early.
So I argue for a system that cuts out the middle men as much as possible and lets creativity flow while building for success, not huge payouts. If a huge payout happens, wonderful! Go invest modestly in startup gaming company.
And all of this only if the project gets finished some day. Quite a tricky situation. Besides I doubt it will be financially wise for the players.
It's still a good example of what can happen if module based games become popular. There's a huge risk for the players in this situation and that's why I'm not enthusiastic about it.
To many "ifs" for my liking.
Yup. The definition of business is risk. Could be that my approach wouldn't work at all. Could be that it would make studios wildly successful without sacrificing any quality. Likely, it would be somewhere in the middle: better than what exists but full of bugs.