• Fuzunga - June 17, 2013 12:20 a.m.

    That Captain Obvious is a smart guy.
  • jmcgrotty - June 15, 2013 4:55 a.m.

    Some of these things really are some of the biggest problems with the future of the industry, and are enough to drive most rational people away. The greater emphasis on remote social aspects of games (This means anything social with a game that doesn't involve you and whoever else in the same room) are one of the bigger annoyances in the industry right now. Just look at that ridiculous "share" button on the PS4 controller itself. At first I thought that people would try that once and then never again, but now my fear grows more that people might actually use it, when it has no real use to anyone in the world. New flash: NO ONE wants to see a video of your latest gaming session. And yet, with that button there, people are going to feel it's acceptable to just upload anything and everything. And that is only the most obvious problem. If you look at the IU video for the PS4, it is full of mistakes (all the communication with other friends online, especially ones not in your game), and there is no room for any sort of in-game chat, whether in one game or cross-game. Don't get me started on the "take over a friends game and play for them" BS. DRM is up in the air, and I disagree that just because one group does it, then everyone else will accept it and bring it on. You mention one example, but why don't you also mention how EA canceled their online pass due to bad sales of it (conspiracy theorists will wrongly say it was because they knew about the requirements of the Xbone and assumed the PS4 would be the same way), and Sony announced no online passes for their games, either. But, if there is an influx of these DRM measures coming into play, it's a lot easier to just give up on gaming rather than deal with it. I have plenty of retro games I can still play and be happy with. Have any of you actually tried to use a tablet for second-screen gaming? It's a debacle, having to look down from the screen every time you want to use it. Anyone who has tried to use it once knows the system does not work. This is a non-factor in gaming, big picture. I totally see particles becoming the new lens flare: overused to the point of it being a punchline. At least you were right about 60fps and motion controls being a dud.
  • pokepark7 - June 14, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    good to know ....... well .......i know well need help in deciding to buy ether a 1) Wii U, 2) PS4, or 3) XBOX 360 and why.
  • Balaska - June 15, 2013 12:31 a.m.

    I love my 360 and my WiiU, but so few games for WiiU and the 360 is really starting to show it's age. For reasons of price, support and freedom of choice (less DRM, region free) the PS4 is the clear winner. If you meant Xbox One rather than 360, right now, with MS' draconian stance of software, the PS4 is head an shoulders ahead. Unless you really have to play the next Halo...
  • pokepark7 - June 15, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    OK thanks and now that i think of it XBOX one is what i wanted to type sorry about that so i'll think about the PS4 further now
  • LordZarlon - June 14, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    Your argument about DRM is flawed in that you mention online passes but EA has already dumped them. Clearly unpopular strategies don't always work with video games, fool!
  • Jet - June 14, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Can you please stop with the slide format. Its annoying. Is there a way to read it normally?
  • BladedFalcon - June 14, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    Nope, it's been over a year or more that it's been like this, I don't see it changing any time soon, for better or worse.
  • Jet - June 14, 2013 3:37 p.m.

  • jmcgrotty - June 15, 2013 4:55 a.m.

    For better? Who thinks it's better? It has driven me from the site, personally. I stop in maybe once a month, if that, now.
  • BladedFalcon - June 14, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Regarding the PS Eye, it should be noted that Sony is selling it separately from the main system, effectively making it a non-required peripheral, and such, pretty much guaranteeing and there's going to be very few games that will force you to use motion controls in the PS4. Honestly, it's pretty clear that camera was shown just to say "look, anything the XBone can do, we can" in case that, by some miracle, the Kinect 2.0 actually took off. But it's clear Sony has no longer any intention to force motion controls down on people's throats. And I'm super fine with that. Also, the DRM expanding a spreading is going to be entirely up to the consumer. Using stuff like Online passes as an example of how this will happen is kinda incorrect because online passes only affected those that wanted to play online, and even then, the fee to use one wasn't very big. But regarding the DRM Micrososft is using... again, it's up to the consumer, unlike other DRM techniques, people have a clear choice here: If they don't want DRM? buy a PS4, if they're okay with it? get a Xbone. So, if the Xbone proved to be super popular despite it's DRM policies, then yes, you bet your ass it'll spread, but if it crashes and burns? nope.
  • GOD - June 14, 2013 11:08 a.m.

    So basically you're saying that every game that has online should have a subscription service that charges you relative to the amount of time you play online? That's sounds like a terrible idea. The whole point of online passes was to subsidize the cost of server maintenance and recoup some of the costs lost from used game sales. In 99% percent of cases online passes only locked you out of multiplayer functionality, and the pass only cost you $10 if you wanted to access that content. Once again people use publishers as the scapecoat. Believe it or not publishers are not the devil, and if you like big AAA games, publishers are very necessary and the more money they make the more studios they give money too, and the less money they make the more studios get closed down. It's really sad that whenever someone is asked to support a developer their immediate reaction is to complain about how they don't want that greedy publisher getting any more money, when that publisher was essential to that game being released and having the budget that it did. For a simple analogy: "Why should I buy my music on a new CD from the store when the greedy record label is just going to get all the money? I can get it from my friend completely legally without feeding Big Music's greed."..... and look what happened to CDs? Now they barely exist, and the majority of music is sold in a digital format which removes your ability to resell it. That's what will happen to games eventually too, and the industry as a whole will probably push for it much faster than most consumers will want it, for this exact situation of people trying to circumvent publishers to buy their games with less expense to themselves. The more you try to "push back" against developers, the more rapidly we'll get to things similar to what MS proposed for all games. Even disc copies of games will turn into one time installs because hard drives will be so big. Nintendo will probably be the last ones to implement any of this but a few years after MS and Sony are on the same page with it Ninty will also follow suit.
  • GOD - June 14, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    I'm fine with digital rights not being the same as physical rights. I reason being that due to the extremely minimal distribution costs of digital it allows prices to be much lower, and the lack of used sales certainly helps the content provider know they can be financially stable with offering lower prices. If indie games that were self published could be sold on the market like used games.... indie developers would make noticeably less than they do now, even though all the revenue goes to them and not some publisher. What's everyone's excuse when that happens? People love that publishers exist because they can always use the publisher as their scapegoat whenever they don't want to pay full price for something or buy it new. "Online passes only exist for publishers to milk consumers dry" and other similar sentiments are wrongly thrown around. A publisher has to be profitable. If not, then they won't publish games. It's that simple. Kickstarters are not feasible for huge AAA titles. In addition to that, not all of these titles are successful even after tons of money was spent on them by a publisher, and so it's simple business sense that when you have a success you'd like to get the best return within reason to help account for other ventures that ended up losing money. Publishers are far too often playing it safe with what kinds of games they publish and how much freedom they give the developers that they are financially backing, but that's because it's the PUBLISHER'S MONEY that was put into the production of that game and if the publisher doesn't make that money back with interest more often than they take a loss, that publisher will tank. That's why we see multiplayer added into traditionally single player games, that's why online passes exist to try and account for lost new game sales, and that's why pre-order bonues exist to try and encourage people as much as possible to buy a game new. Publishers need to make money. I don't know where you unfounded demonization of them came from but they're trying to make money so they can exist to publish more games. Publisher is not a single rich individual. It's a company much like any other that has funds games and then needs returns much like a bank loans money and requires interest. 98% of people that work at that publisher are not in any way rich. They are just working towards a living like the rest of us. If you think the heads of publishers are too rich, then your issue is with every company that has filthy rich executives. You should be complaining about Wendy's as much game publishers.

Showing 1-20 of 55 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.