Violent By Design wrote:I mean I'm thinking of every generation back to the 8 bit era, and I can think of quite a few "killer ips" that had a ton of sequels with in one generations life time.
Yeah, that's true, but the fact that it isn't a new practice doesn't make it any less irritating. I would argue that it's definitely worse now though, some franchises even run on a schedule now.
Erm, but why? If someone loves Devil May Cry and wants to play a game just like it, why should they be denied that right?
I mean who really cares if it doesn't look pretty that there are 3 Uncharteds or Gears of War? This is for entertainment, people who want to experience another Uncharted have that option, those who do not have the option to purchase something else.
Exclusivity is very dramatized with in the gaming community.
dogman91 wrote:Well I can safely say there is no way in hell I'm buying this ever. Unless it get's hacked or something I'd like to know whatever game I buy is mine to keep after the servers go off. Hopefully anything good will also be on PS4 or WiiU
You do realize that this model is the inevitable future, right? PC has gone that way, Xbox is going this way, and it's only a matter of time before Nintendo and Sony follow suit. There's just too much benefit for companies to do this, and the fact that Steam hasn't crashed and burned, and in fact has been massively successful, tells me that models like GOG will be the outlier, rather than the norm.
Meaning less rational reasons to buy a console. Except for those fabled exclusives. Heck I waited till 2012 till I got the PS3 exclusives, as many games already get Windows and multi-console releases.
So no reason to buy a console or a PC? Or did you miss the part where I pointed out that the PC is this way already in the majority case?
To access the same features that you get on Steam you do need to pay for Live.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The 360 had you pay for live but you just ran off the disk. Which are you claiming:
1. The 360 used to be better than PC, because having a disk was worth the online access fee
2. The 360 was worse than PC due to the access fee, but now it's even worse because of the account tying
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
To access the same features that you get on Steam you do need to pay for Live.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The 360 had you pay for live but you just ran off the disk. Which are you claiming:
1. The 360 used to be better than PC, because having a disk was worth the online access fee
2. The 360 was worse than PC due to the access fee, but now it's even worse because of the account tying
In order to achieve the same functionality as the PC but still have the benefit of plug and play console gaming the Xbox Live fee was a necessary evil. Now they're wanting to charge the same fee (possibly even more, who knows, I can't see Microsoft lowering the price, can you?) for more restrictions. The problem was that Microsoft eked out a niche for themselves in having the better online network, the only drawback was the fee for that service. Now they're attempting a similar system to Steam that simply costs more money and arguably has more restrictions. That's my issue. They're very close to launching a complete train wreck, especially if the console costs £350+. For that amount of money you can get a PC that is twice as powerful as the Xbox One, fuck, for an extra fifty or so quid you can add in the TV functionality shit via a capture card.
Microsoft need to concentrate on making that Xbox Live sub valuable again, not simply the passport to the rest of the system. Right now the Xbox Live sub is not worth paying on the Xbox 360, not compared to the alternatives now that Sony have (finally) got their shit back together.
To access the same features that you get on Steam you do need to pay for Live.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The 360 had you pay for live but you just ran off the disk. Which are you claiming:
1. The 360 used to be better than PC, because having a disk was worth the online access fee
2. The 360 was worse than PC due to the access fee, but now it's even worse because of the account tying
In order to achieve the same functionality as the PC but still have the benefit of plug and play console gaming the Xbox Live fee was a necessary evil. Now they're wanting to charge the same fee (possibly even more, who knows, I can't see Microsoft lowering the price, can you?) for more restrictions. The problem was that Microsoft eked out a niche for themselves in having the better online network, the only drawback was the fee for that service. Now they're attempting a similar system to Steam that simply costs more money and arguably has more restrictions. That's my issue. They're very close to launching a complete train wreck, especially if the console costs £350+. For that amount of money you can get a PC that is twice as powerful as the Xbox One, fuck, for an extra fifty or so quid you can add in the TV functionality shit via a capture card.
Microsoft need to concentrate on making that Xbox Live sub valuable again, not simple the passport to the rest of the system. Right now the Xbox Live sub is not worth paying on the Xbox 360, not compared to the alternatives now that Sony have (finally) got their shit back together.
The plug and play you're talking about, that was a 15 minute install and a 5 minutes of playing with graphics setup. People couldn't be assed to do that and would rather pay for online access (which no other platform charges for). You really think they'll suddenly decide to switch to PC over this?
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Niode wrote:
In order to achieve the same functionality as the PC but still have the benefit of plug and play console gaming the Xbox Live fee was a necessary evil. Now they're wanting to charge the same fee (possibly even more, who knows, I can't see Microsoft lowering the price, can you?) for more restrictions. The problem was that Microsoft eked out a niche for themselves in having the better online network, the only drawback was the fee for that service. Now they're attempting a similar system to Steam that simply costs more money and arguably has more restrictions. That's my issue. They're very close to launching a complete train wreck, especially if the console costs £350+. For that amount of money you can get a PC that is twice as powerful as the Xbox One, fuck, for an extra fifty or so quid you can add in the TV functionality shit via a capture card.
Microsoft need to concentrate on making that Xbox Live sub valuable again, not simple the passport to the rest of the system. Right now the Xbox Live sub is not worth paying on the Xbox 360, not compared to the alternatives now that Sony have (finally) got their shit back together.
The plug and play you're talking about, that was a 15 minute install and a 5 minutes of playing with graphics setup. People couldn't be assed to do that and would rather pay for online access (which no other platform charges for). You really think they'll suddenly decide to switch to PC over this?
No, the point was you could take the game back to the shop, or rent games. You can't do that with PC gaming. That's always been the benefit of console gaming. Now they're stopping that from being possible, akin to PC gaming, functionality wise it's getting almost identical to the Steam model, but they want to charge a fee for it. That's the issue. Steam has always offered better value at the cost of flexibility. If Microsoft decide to go with this then they're basically handing the crown over to whoever does the EXACT opposite of what they're doing. Their strategy is very anti-consumerist, whoever chooses to go pro-consumer wins by default.
