Jump to content

Genre you thought you would play forever... That is DEAD to you now?


DeadSlash

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If/when Microsoft comes out with a new Xbox or If/when Playstation 5 comes out, I can guarantee you support for 360 and PS3 will be GONE. Add 20 more years to that, and current gen online only games will also have NO SUPPORT. They might be doing a decent job with it for now, but it'll only last so long. So my original point stands.

Maybe, but if you look at what Microsoft did this year by adding original Xbox games back to the Xbox One back catalogue list, it seems as though not all is lost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If/when Microsoft comes out with a new Xbox or If/when Playstation 5 comes out, I can guarantee you support for 360 and PS3 will be GONE. Add 20 more years to that, and current gen online only games will also have NO SUPPORT. They might be doing a decent job with it for now, but it'll only last so long. So my original point stands.

So, there's two things you're saying here. Online only games will have no support after some time, and backwards compatibility will be gone with the next generation of systems. I mostly disagree with those statements (and I very much disagree with you stating them as fact without providing supporting argumentation).

The reason these games go offline is not because of hardware's inability to play them (though, backwards compatibility is not as simple as people think), it's because the player base dwindles as time moves on. People buy new games/new systems and gravitate toward the newest technology. That's just the way it works. That being said, some of these developers keep the servers up if the game's population still thrives: again, see Jedi Academy and Battlefield.

But should one expect to be able to play an online only game 20 years from now? It's a good question. 20 years is a long time for a game's life. Other than those who are nostalgic about the game, I have a hard time believing there are masses of people who'd prefer to play decades-old games vs. something from the last 3-5 years. That being said, it's very possible severs will be kept up anyway. It really depends on the success of the game.

I'm not too familiar with the games you mentioned, but if you're looking for a horror experience that is single player only, check out the Metro series. 

Edited by OmarBradley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

If/when Microsoft comes out with a new Xbox or If/when Playstation 5 comes out, I can guarantee you support for 360 and PS3 will be GONE. Add 20 more years to that, and current gen online only games will also have NO SUPPORT. They might be doing a decent job with it for now, but it'll only last so long. So my original point stands.

I was under the impression that most online console games didn't run on dedicated servers anyway. By that rationale I would imagine they would be playable as long as the XBox Live/PSN existed. Now whether people will still want to play a 20 year old online only FPS is the real question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly backwards compatibility is a possibility, and it seems that most manufactures are starting to understand the desire for this many gamers have. Having said that, can you play Halo 1, 2, or 3 online these days on xbox 1? I honestly dont know the answer to this question. I want to say I did hear somewhere that halo 1 and 2 (because they were OG Xbox games) are only playable offline. But again, I'm not betting the farm on that, it's just something I heard. 

 

Obviously as years pass, games fall out of favor, and hence lose their following. So ya 5-6 years from now, I'm sure games like Fortnite will no longer have the following they currently have. So if they no longer have the fan base, it would make sense (financially) to pull the plug on them. But eventually nostalgia sets in, the current trend towards backwards compatibility and "mini" systems is proof. Will games like Fortnite still have servers 20 years from now, that's the question. Maybe they will, nobody knows for sure. But then again, I honestly wouldn't bet on it. Why? The big 3 companies (Microsoft, Sony, and nintendo) want you to buy the CURRENT system and current games. Sure they might throw you a few bones (the OG xbox backwards compatibility is lacking, as is the the games Nintendo is releasing on their classic systems and Nintendo online). Yes it's better than nothing. But if they dont always provide players with the games they want, instead the games that are most convenient for them. 

Which that's what leads me to my worry (as well as others within the gaming community that know a lot more than I do). Nintendo will give its fans Mario 3 (it's easy for them at this point). They will also give us Punchout, but NOT Mike Tysons Punchout (which is the one everyone really wants), they also wont give fans Golden Eye for N64 (if the rumored N64 classic is true). They will instead give fans Perfect Dark, because again its easier. So if they are unwilling to jump through hoops for games like Mike Tysons Punchout or Golden Eye (that are super easy to emulate), can we REALLY count on them for games that are online only that require dedicated servers to be active or rebooted 20/30 years from now? 

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'm not counting on it.

 

Just dont get me wrong here folks, I'm NOT against online play in any way shape or form. I'm just saying this trend that is developing, could have a real negative effect on the future viability of many of these games, and a whole generation of gamers could have their favorite games from their youth lost to time. That's why we should hold our system and game developers to higher standards. NO GAME should be online only. Plus EVERY game should also come with physical media (within reason of course, major releases). 

Edited by Iron MikeyJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch a lot of videos from guys that know a lot more about gaming industry than I do. What many of them have stated is that in "older days" game developers would set a release date and try to reach it. But if the game wasnt done, they would just push back the date, because the game NEEDED to be done, that was the most important thing. 

Well now, meeting those dead lines is the most important thing, even if the game isn't done or has serious issues. They know they can just patch the game later on and fix those issues. The problem with that logic is, once the game (or system its on) goes off line, then the patch becomes lost to time. So all of these games that require these patches, will be returned to their "unfinished" state if you dont have that patch on your system. 

So if you buy a used xbox 360 20 years from now, and reset it to factory settings, you will be stuck with a TON of unfinished games. That's another reason we should hold these companies to higher standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a leap to say backward compatibility is going away.    PS3 launched with it and then removed it and then brought it back again, and it was late to the party with this gen of consoles.  I'm guessing the software side is the one that hates this.  It can't hurt the sale of new consoles, but game sales might feel it

 

If you are a fan of backward compatibility, and you want to get real sad, real fast, google "Bleem" and "BleemCast"  That fucking thing was a game changer, until it was sued into oblivion.  I think they made it, eventually.  But the time has past.  I would imagine the console wars would have looked VERY different if the DreamCast has the ability to play the PSX library, with enhanced graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

Do you know what is AMAZING to me, and really, REALLY scary?  How a lot of younger games will defend the fuck out of microtransactions.  When you discuss microtransactions in a negative tone on Steam forums, there will be about 30% - 50% of the replies jumping down your throat for "being poor."

Its easy for them to say that using mommy and daddies debit card :rolleyes:

Never put a dime toward a microtransaction and never will. Just wish more took this stance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Isn't it the simple principle of being able to own what you buy? You should be less complacent and more upset. :lol:

I believe when you purchase a game (online or not), you are actually buying the right to play the game, like a license. I believe movies and music work the same way. I'm sure these corporations have had their lawyers consider every possible case and have crafted meticulous legal documentation (Terms of Service, etc.) that allow them to be flexible in how they handle the future and duration of a game/live service. 

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Clearly backwards compatibility is a possibility, and it seems that most manufactures are starting to understand the desire for this many gamers have. Having said that, can you play Halo 1, 2, or 3 online these days on xbox 1? I honestly dont know the answer to this question. I want to say I did hear somewhere that halo 1 and 2 (because they were OG Xbox games) are only playable offline. But again, I'm not betting the farm on that, it's just something I heard. 

Obviously as years pass, games fall out of favor and hence lose their following. So ya 5-6 years from now, I'm sure games like Fortnite will no longer have the following they currently have. So if they no longer have the fan base, it would make sense (financially) to pull the plug on them. But eventually nostalgia sets in, the current trend towards backwards compatibility and "mini" systems is proof. Will games like Fortnite still have servers 20 years from now, that's the question. Maybe they will, nobody knows for sure. But then again, I honestly wouldn't bet on it. Why? The big 3 companies (Microsoft, Sony, and nintendo) want you to buy the CURRENT system and current games. Sure they might throw you a few bones (the OG xbox backwards compatibility is lacking, as is the the games Nintendo is releasing on their classic systems and Nintendo online). Yes it's better than nothing. But if they dont always provide players with the games they want, instead the games that are most convenient for them. 

Which that's what leads me to my worry (as well as others within the gaming community that know a lot more than I do). Nintendo will give its fans Mario 3 (it's easy for them at this point). They will also give us Punchout, but NOT Mike Tysons Punchout (which is the one everyone really wants), they also wont give fans Golden Eye for N64 (if the rumored N64 classic is true). They will instead give fans Perfect Dark, because again its easier. So if they are unwilling to jump through hoops for games like Mike Tysons Punchout or Golden Eye (that are super easy to emulate), can we REALLY count on them for games that are online only that require dedicated servers to be active or rebooted 20/30 years from now? 

Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but I'm not counting on it.

Just dont get me wrong here folks, I'm NOT against online play in any way shape or form. I'm just saying this trend that is developing, could have a real negative effect on the future viability of many of these games, and a whole generation of gamers could have their favorite games from their youth lost to time. That's why we should hold our system and game developers to higher standards. NO GAME should be online only. Plus EVERY game should also come with physical media (within reason of course, major releases). 

I don't think Halo 1 or 2 have official servers up. From a quick Google search, it looks like you can do workarounds to play unofficial servers, but the population is very small. And it wouldn't be possible on XB1; original or 360 would be my guess. But this is not really my area so if you're genuinely interested, you may want to look into it.

It's not just the companies that want you buying the new stuff, it's the consumer wanting to buy it too. For every 1 person wanting to play Halo 1 online on their original Xbox, there are 10 people wanting a new Halo game on the next Xbox generation (made up statistics, but you get my point). It's no surprise the smaller population who want to play 15-20 year old games get less attention from the gaming companies. Just from a business standpoint, it costs them a lot money/resources to keep those games alive and they get pretty much nothing in return for it. In order to innovate and push gaming further, they need revenue coming in. And new games/systems bring that, 20 year old games don't. It's not really a matter of "convenience," but what makes the most sense from a business/technology standpoint. Old tech becomes costly to keep alive over time, like old code becomes difficult to manage (this is part of why 20 year old games don't easily work on newer hardware, the protocols of the systems/hardware change over time). I see what you mean by convenience, but I feel that word is really misplaced for what we're talking about. It's about what makes sense vs. what doesn't make sense from both a business and artistic/development standpoint.

I'm not too familiar with issues surrounding Punchout or Perfect Dark or a rumored N64 console. If you want to elaborate, I'd be interested to know. What makes Perfect Dark easier than Goldeneye? What hoops are you referring to? 

You're equating whether or not Nintendo will re-release 20 year old games with whether or not gaming companies in general will manage servers for 20 years after a game's release? I don't think those issues are symmetrical enough to justify comparison. They're different issues, to me at least.  

3 hours ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I watch a lot of videos from guys that know a lot more about gaming industry than I do. What many of them have stated is that in "older days" game developers would set a release date and try to reach it. But if the game wasnt done, they would just push back the date, because the game NEEDED to be done, that was the most important thing. 

Well now, meeting those dead lines is the most important thing, even if the game isn't done or has serious issues. They know they can just patch the game later on and fix those issues. The problem with that logic is, once the game (or system its on) goes off line, then the patch becomes lost to time. So all of these games that require these patches, will be returned to their "unfinished" state if you dont have that patch on your system. 

So if you buy a used xbox 360 20 years from now, and reset it to factory settings, you will be stuck with a TON of unfinished games. That's another reason we should hold these companies to higher standards.

While it's fun to reminisce about the old days, I disagree with their assessment. Pushing games back vs. releasing them for business reasons has always been a dichotomy within industry. As noted in the article I linked in my first post, SWG was released well before it was ready - it was plagued by bugs, Jedi wasn't in the game at all, and a litany of features had to be cut to meet Sony's deadlines - and the devs knew they were releasing a product that wasn't really ready, but they had to do it. This was 2003. 

The Witcher 3 (2015) was pushed back, Mass Effect Andromeda (2017) was pushed back, Battlefield V (2018) was pushed back. For Honor (2017), should have been pushed back. AC: Unity (2014), should have been pushed back. Kingdom Come (2018), should have been pushed back.

There are a myriad of examples on both sides of the spectrum for any time in gaming. Nostalgia for the old days is just that, nostalgia.

Returned to unfinished/unpatched states? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but when you are buying/downloading a game, every official patch/hotfix up until that moment is included with the product, unless you're buying a physical copy that's months/years old. If the year is 2020 and you are buying a physical copy of a game released in 2001, yeah you might out of luck, but that shouldn't surprise you. And while I respect your desire to keep playing these games, the audience/market is just not there to make keeping them alive worth it (in an official manner at least, but as you noted there are plenty of emulators for these older games).

The ease of patching in modern gaming does make it easier to fix things post-release, but I'd be careful in asserting that it means developers purposely ship broken or buggy titles because they don't feel responsible to finish the game pre-shipment. It's rarely (if ever) that simple.

14 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

Its easy for them to say that using mommy and daddies debit card :rolleyes:

Never put a dime toward a microtransaction and never will. Just wish more took this stance.

That's the great thing about where the industry is heading (cosmetic/non-gameplay related items only) - you and I don't have to spend a dime on these things, but we'll still benefit from the fact that the companies receive the revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 1:23 PM, OmarBradley said:

I believe when you purchase a game (online or not), you are actually buying the right to play the game, like a license. I believe movies and music work the same way. I'm sure these corporations have had their lawyers consider every possible case and have crafted meticulous legal documentation (Terms of Service, etc.) that allow them to be flexible in how they handle the future and duration of a game/live service. 

Ok, so a lot to unpack in this post, lol. Let me just start by saying, are my thoughts offensive to you? You seem to be a little hostile over this issue. Which if that's the case, it's just games man. Perhaps I'm reading more into this, which I hope is the case. 😃

Anyways, as for this first part, there are a couple of MAJOR differences between gaming and music or movies. For one, when you buy a game, it becomes YOUR property, just like a movie does. Are there some limitations, yes. But having said that, a movie will ALWAYS work the same on day 1 as it does 20 years later (as long as it is taken care of). You can't say the same for these newer games. They keep patching and modifying the games until they are "perfect". Which is fine, but shouldn't these issues have already been addressed? Game companies are PURPOSLY releasing unfinished games in order to reach deadlines, because they know they can just patch them later. This is just a fact man, it can't really be argued. That doesn't mean games NEVER get pushed back from release dates, but even when they do, they still are not quite finished. Which when you compare that to games of old (heck even 10 years ago), it becomes quite shocking. Sure you can say "why does it matter, they fix the issues." Which you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm also entitled to say "I wish games DIDNT need patches, instead came perfect from the get go." Which when you compare this process to that of music or movies, I'm sure you can see the glaring difference.

Another point I can make in regards to games vs movies or music is that movies and music are actually FURTHER a head as far as rights issues than games are. Think about it like this, when you buy a physical copy of a movie, they often come with a digital download. So NOT ONLY can you watch the movie on your player, but you can watch the digital copy on multiple platforms. But you can also LEGALLY make a copy of that original if you so choose (not sure why you would with a film, but it's quite common with music). You just can't sell, redistribute, or put on a site like YouTube without permission. 

Now compare that with games. You can ONLY play a Playstation 4 game on a playstation 4. By comparison that would be like CDs or DVDs made by Sony would ONLY work on Sony players. So you would have to buy a Sony player in order to play a Sony movie, etc. Yes Xbox IS starting to become cross play friendly (letting you have a xbox version and PC version of the games you buy), but why? Because Microsoft ALSO owns the PC industry, so technically speaking they are both their devices. 

Obviously, giving gaming's history, its ALWAYS been like this, so expecting a change now isn't really realistic. So I'm ok with companies doing this with their CURRENT generation, it's the older stuff I disagree with. For example, I disagree with what Nintendo is doing with their back catalogue. They dont want you playing Mario 3 (for example) on ANYTHING other than official Nintendo hardware. I have BOUGHT that game 3 times now (original NES, Super Mario Allstars on SNES, and again on the Nintendo Switch online service). So I have supported Nintendos right to have that game. Yet they are shutting down emulation sites because they want people to buy the Nintendo Classic, not play it on your PC. That makes me feel like the LAW is wrong and needs to be changed. I own Purple Rain on Vinyl, I have actually NEVER owned it on any other platform. I downloaded the MP3's for it, but didnt pay for them. Why? Because I ALREADY own that album. Legally speaking I didnt do anything wrong, I already paid for that album once. Why is it ok for music/movies, but wrong for games. That doesn't make sense to me.

On 10/20/2018 at 1:23 PM, OmarBradley said:

 

I'm not too familiar with issues surrounding Punchout or Perfect Dark or a rumored N64 console. If you want to elaborate, I'd be interested to know. What makes Perfect Dark easier than Goldeneye? What hoops are you referring to? 

Ok, here is the deal... It's all about MONEY. The deal Nintendo had to use Mike Tysons likeness expired back in like 1990 or something. But the game Punch Out was STILL extremely popular. So instead of paying Tyson to make NEW copies of that game, they instead made a "new" Punchout. The "new" Punchout is EXACTLY like the original, just minus Mike Tyson. Which in Tysons place they did a Sprite swap, and created a new final boss called Mr. DREAM. He plays EXACTLY like Tyson, same moves, etc. Everytime Nintendo rereleases that game, its ALWAYS the version without Tyson, because they dont want to pay to use his likeness... Still. Honestly the original Mike Tysons Punchout will ONLY ever be available on the NES or through emulation. So this game is an example of a game that can (and will) get lost to time. Except by those with the original game or those that have emulated versions. 

007 Golden Eye is another game that WILL get lost to time, but this one might have a bigger effects felt. In order for Nintendo to rerelease that game, they would have to pay the film company and actor likenesses for reusing them (similar to the issues with Punchout). So IF or when Ninendo does a N64 classic, this game WILL NOT be on it. Which is a real shame considering it's the father of multiplayer first person shooters. Instead Nintendo will release the game Perfect Dark (its similar to golden eye, but Nintendo owns the rights to it, so it's a "cheaper" release). 

My point in all of this, is these are examples of games that are CLASSICS that WILL get lost to time, all because Nintendo doesn't want to give the fans EXACTLY what they want (because it costs them extra money). So when we look back at Playstation (1, 2, 3, 4) or Xbox days, we will see similar issues, plus MORE with games that require online services in order to play. I've already heard that the Playstaion classic that's coming is having problems getting games that the fans want (again they dont want to pay for them), although I can't remember the games off hand. I already have problems with the Xbox 1 backwards compatibility to the OG Xbox. Yes they give you Halo, but where is Gauntlet Legends? Where is Godzilla Destroy all monsters? If they can do Halo, they can do these other games. It's a matter of desire or lack there of. 

 

I could respond to more of your post, but I've already written a WALL, lol. As I said earlier, these are just games. We might have some differences of opinions, and that's ok. I'm not trying to sway your opinion, just trying to explain my take on this issue (as well as I can without writing a book). At the end of the day though, it's all good man 👍 game on.

Edited by Iron MikeyJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can play all the Halo games still with Master Chief Collection. I was just playing Halo 2 and 4

Also I think games as a whole are lame currently (except Witcher 3). Way too much focus on bullshit and multiplayer aspects (Fuck Destiny) and games dont even get finished when released. Then again, I'm speaking as an XBox owner. Xbox has nothing but Halo, it seems like PS4 has a ton of awesome stuff so maybe I just have the wrong system

I think about the while nostalgia thing sometimes. For example, Planetside 2 is my favorite multiplayer game ever, but it'll be gone one day. Then again, I'll have put many hours into it to reminisce on and there will surely be something else out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2018 at 3:34 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

Ok, so a lot to unpack in this post, lol. Let me just start by saying, are my thoughts offensive to you? You seem to be a little hostile over this issue. Which if that's the case, it's just games man. Perhaps I'm reading more into this, which I hope is the case. 😃

Anyways, as for this first part, there are a couple of MAJOR differences between gaming and music or movies. For one, when you buy a game, it becomes YOUR property, just like a movie does. Are there some limitations, yes. But having said that, a movie will ALWAYS work the same on day 1 as it does 20 years later (as long as it is taken care of). You can't say the same for these newer games. They keep patching and modifying the games until they are "perfect". Which is fine, but shouldn't these issues have already been addressed? Game companies are PURPOSLY releasing unfinished games in order to reach deadlines, because they know they can just patch them later. This is just a fact man, it can't really be argued. That doesn't mean games NEVER get pushed back from release dates, but even when they do, they still are not quite finished. Which when you compare that to games of old (heck even 10 years ago), it becomes quite shocking. Sure you can say "why does it matter, they fix the issues." Which you are entitled to that opinion, but I'm also entitled to say "I wish games DIDNT need patches, instead came perfect from the get go." Which when you compare this process to that of music or movies, I'm sure you can see the glaring difference.

Another point I can make in regards to games vs movies or music is that movies and music are actually FURTHER a head as far as rights issues than games are. Think about it like this, when you buy a physical copy of a movie, they often come with a digital download. So NOT ONLY can you watch the movie on your player, but you can watch the digital copy on multiple platforms. But you can also LEGALLY make a copy of that original if you so choose (not sure why you would with a film, but it's quite common with music). You just can't sell, redistribute, or put on a site like YouTube without permission. 

Now compare that with games. You can ONLY play a Playstation 4 game on a playstation 4. By comparison that would be like CDs or DVDs made by Sony would ONLY work on Sony players. So you would have to buy a Sony player in order to play a Sony movie, etc. Yes Xbox IS starting to become cross play friendly (letting you have a xbox version and PC version of the games you buy), but why? Because Microsoft ALSO owns the PC industry, so technically speaking they are both their devices. 

Obviously, giving gaming's history, its ALWAYS been like this, so expecting a change now isn't really realistic. So I'm ok with companies doing this with their CURRENT generation, it's the older stuff I disagree with. For example, I disagree with what Nintendo is doing with their back catalogue. They dont want you playing Mario 3 (for example) on ANYTHING other than official Nintendo hardware. I have BOUGHT that game 3 times now (original NES, Super Mario Allstars on SNES, and again on the Nintendo Switch online service). So I have supported Nintendos right to have that game. Yet they are shutting down emulation sites because they want people to buy the Nintendo Classic, not play it on your PC. That makes me feel like the LAW is wrong and needs to be changed. I own Purple Rain on Vinyl, I have actually NEVER owned it on any other platform. I downloaded the MP3's for it, but didnt pay for them. Why? Because I ALREADY own that album. Legally speaking I didnt do anything wrong, I already paid for that album once. Why is it ok for music/movies, but wrong for games. That doesn't make sense to me.

Ok, here is the deal... It's all about MONEY. The deal Nintendo had to use Mike Tysons likeness expired back in like 1990 or something. But the game Punch Out was STILL extremely popular. So instead of paying Tyson to make NEW copies of that game, they instead made a "new" Punchout. The "new" Punchout is EXACTLY like the original, just minus Mike Tyson. Which in Tysons place they did a Sprite swap, and created a new final boss called Mr. DREAM. He plays EXACTLY like Tyson, same moves, etc. Everytime Nintendo rereleases that game, its ALWAYS the version without Tyson, because they dont want to pay to use his likeness... Still. Honestly the original Mike Tysons Punchout will ONLY ever be available on the NES or through emulation. So this game is an example of a game that can (and will) get lost to time. Except by those with the original game or those that have emulated versions. 

007 Golden Eye is another game that WILL get lost to time, but this one might have a bigger effects felt. In order for Nintendo to rerelease that game, they would have to pay the film company and actor likenesses for reusing them (similar to the issues with Punchout). So IF or when Ninendo does a N64 classic, this game WILL NOT be on it. Which is a real shame considering it's the father of multiplayer first person shooters. Instead Nintendo will release the game Perfect Dark (its similar to golden eye, but Nintendo owns the rights to it, so it's a "cheaper" release). 

My point in all of this, is these are examples of games that are CLASSICS that WILL get lost to time, all because Nintendo doesn't want to give the fans EXACTLY what they want (because it costs them extra money). So when we look back at Playstation (1, 2, 3, 4) or Xbox days, we will see similar issues, plus MORE with games that require online services in order to play. I've already heard that the Playstaion classic that's coming is having problems getting games that the fans want (again they dont want to pay for them), although I can't remember the games off hand. I already have problems with the Xbox 1 backwards compatibility to the OG Xbox. Yes they give you Halo, but where is Gauntlet Legends? Where is Godzilla Destroy all monsters? If they can do Halo, they can do these other games. It's a matter of desire or lack there of. 

 

I could respond to more of your post, but I've already written a WALL, lol. As I said earlier, these are just games. We might have some differences of opinions, and that's ok. I'm not trying to sway your opinion, just trying to explain my take on this issue (as well as I can without writing a book). At the end of the day though, it's all good man 👍 game on.

 

I just did some Googling and it seems there are a slight mix of viewpoints on the "do you own a game?" question, but what I'm seeing is mostly saying varying degrees of "no."

Quote

Typically, and I can't stress that word enough, what you get in layman's terms is a license to use the software on the disc for personal use in the privacy of your own home and a guarantee that the hardware disc is free from defects in workmanship.

Quote

 

What do you own? Looking through my possessions, I feel fairly comfortable that the food in my fridge belongs to me. And I have an odd confidence that the hardware in my PC is mine. But the books on my shelves? I seem to have very little rights over them. The CDs stacked up in a cupboard (remember CDs?) certainly aren't my property. And the software on my computer may as well be tied to a long piece of elastic, just waiting for the publishers to give it a tug. You own a license.

 

I'm not a lawyer and I couldn't easily find 100% reputable sources for this, but I'm pretty sure you don't own games. If you buy a physical copy, you own a disc and some packaging, but not the software on said disc.

I don't agree that developers/publishers malevolently release broken products with the intention of fixing them post-release. Until you provide reputable sources that say otherwise, I absolutely will argue this point. Admittedly, I can think of two cases recently where this sort of happened. No Man's Sky and Kingdom Come. With the former, apparently the developers either lied or over-hyped the state of the game on release - this resulted in monumental backlash and lots of refunds. The latter was released in what was basically a beta state because the developer ran out of cash. Both developers patched their games significantly after release, and both are still working on further content/patching. But most importantly, both developers were small independent studios. This is not excusing the behavior (although Kingdom Come's developers were in a tight spot, hard to criticize them too much), but it is to highlight this phenomenon is rare in the industry, and when it does happen it's rarely a AAA studio.

Yes and no, in regards to will a movie work 20 years later. If you bought a VHS tape 20 years ago, you're going to need a VHS player to watch it. If you bought Goldeneye on N64, your Wii won't play it. If you downloaded a movie on iTunes, I don't know that it's a guarantee you'll be able to watch it in 20 years. Currently, most major video players can play older file types, but will it be that way 20 years from now? Maybe, I'm not familiar enough with the gritty details of the tech to present an opinion either way. But I will anyway, and say yes you probably can. Because it's seemingly fairly reasonable and doable to make new digital players play old formats. The same cannot be said for gaming consoles. It is not easy to get Halo 1 to run on an XBONE because of how these systems are built. Here is why:

Quote

 

Because backwards compatibility requires the actual hardware of the previous console to be present in the console. It makes it much more expensive to include an Xbox 360 inside the Xbox One, so it's wiser to leave it out. Console innards are vastly different than getting a new video card. This is one reason why people called the Wii "two GameCubes taped together." Its innards are pretty much a souped up GameCube, so hardware emulation was easily feasible. 
Software emulation is another option for backwards compatibility, but emulating the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 is literally impossible with current hardware. Not even the highest-end consumer PC has the capability to emulate them at this point. I think the general rule is that 10 times the amount of processing power is required to emulate the device, and then that doesn't even account for having to actually get it working in the first place. The Xbox 360 tried to do software emulation with the original Xbox, and we all know how that went.

So it's both a technical and an economic limitation.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Its because consoles are not like the PC. Consoles are specialized hardware and a game tries to use every inch of the system in order to get a good looking result. So they try to push every special feature and component (cpu, gpu, bus speed memory speed and size) to their maximal limit. The result is that your highly optimized game is very dependent on the components in your system.


When you want to be backward compatible you can either include all those components (thus include a seperate onboard 360 in your new xone) or you try to emulate the exact behavior of these components with software. The problem with option 1 is that it adds to your system cost, bulk and increases power consumption. On the other hand software emulation of hardware is in general very slow. The more the systems differ the harder its gets to emulate one with the other. So when your old system has a different cpu architecture for example (360 has powerpc and xone has x86) it results in a heavy slowdown. Its essentially like they talk two different languages that you would need to translate on the fly. The new xbox would probably have to be 100-1000 times as fast as the old system, which it isn't.

When you upgrade your pc you basically buy faster components with the same architecture so you don't have to emulate anything. Also PC games are not as highly optimized for a specific configuration, because the PC operating system does not allow a similar lowlevel access as in the console world and more importantly every PC is a little different from the other. You dont have a fixed platform.

 

It's not a matter of taking the game's code and changing variables from "PS4" to "PS1." You make it sound like it's simple and the companies aren't doing it just to be mean to you. As you can see, it's a technically intensive task that is not really worth it on the macro level from both an economic and consumer standpoint. 

Okay, I just did some quick research on Punchout. It was not because Nintendo didn't want to pay to use his likeness. It was because he lost the title.

Quote

Since he had lost the title to James "Buster" Douglas by that point, Nintendo made no attempt to negotiate a new contract with him. Tyson was however, slated to appear in a sequel of his own (Power Punch II) where he would be the protagonist, but as a result of his imprisonment, Nintendo lost interest and instead used a generic boxer named Mark Tyler.

And lots of games get lost by time. Many books, films, and albums get lost to time as well. Due to the architecture of gaming consoles though, it is likely games get lost to time at a much higher rate than other media.

As for GoldenEye: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game)

What's your issue? (I know that sounds rude, but I'm genuinely asking). They did an HD remake and many emulators play original Goldeneye and you can buy an original N64 - there are many options. But you're worried that they won't re-release the stock version of the N64 game for a console that doesn't exist? I'm not understanding the problem.

Gauntlet Legends? Godzilla Destroy All Monsters? I've never heard of these games. You should not expect every single game ever created to be re-released and maintained for all of eternity. Are those games "EXACTLY what fans want?" Maybe you want them, maybe even 20,000 other people who played them in the 90s want them, but do fans on a general level (the millions of people who play console games) want them? I doubt it. Like I said in both this and my previous post, if it were easy the console companies would do it. It is not easy and it doesn't make fiscal or artistic sense to appease you.

As far as PS Classic and issues you've heard of, you can provide me links to sources on what's going on if you'd like. I've spent enough time Googling factual evidence for this post. :lol:

On 10/21/2018 at 5:02 PM, ZoSoRose said:

You can play all the Halo games still with Master Chief Collection. I was just playing Halo 2 and 4

Also I think games as a whole are lame currently (except Witcher 3). Way too much focus on bullshit and multiplayer aspects (Fuck Destiny) and games dont even get finished when released. Then again, I'm speaking as an XBox owner. Xbox has nothing but Halo, it seems like PS4 has a ton of awesome stuff so maybe I just have the wrong system

I think about the while nostalgia thing sometimes. For example, Planetside 2 is my favorite multiplayer game ever, but it'll be gone one day. Then again, I'll have put many hours into it to reminisce on and there will surely be something else out.

Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg?w=300&ssl=1

Edited by OmarBradley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

You can play all the Halo games still with Master Chief Collection. I was just playing Halo 2 and 4

Also I think games as a whole are lame currently (except Witcher 3). Way too much focus on bullshit and multiplayer aspects (Fuck Destiny) and games dont even get finished when released. Then again, I'm speaking as an XBox owner. Xbox has nothing but Halo, it seems like PS4 has a ton of awesome stuff so maybe I just have the wrong system

I think about the while nostalgia thing sometimes. For example, Planetside 2 is my favorite multiplayer game ever, but it'll be gone one day. Then again, I'll have put many hours into it to reminisce on and there will surely be something else out.

1. I was really let down by Destiny.  There was sooooo much hype for that game, and it had pretty nice graphics, but it lacks a soul, or something.  It was just a big pointless grind.  Run here, shoot that for a better weapon, then run there and shoot that for a new helmet, then run there and ...

2. If you think unfinished games are a problem on the Xbox, I'm sure you would really love all of this "early access" bullshit on Steam.  It's literally unfinished games that openly admit they are unfinished, but will allow you to spend money to play the incomplete game as they develop it.  This has become a "legit" way to make money off of a tech demo and leave town with the cash.

3. The closest I ever came to liking Halo was this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

1. I was really let down by Destiny.  There was sooooo much hype for that game, and it had pretty nice graphics, but it lacks a soul, or something.  It was just a big pointless grind.  Run here, shoot that for a better weapon, then run there and shoot that for a new helmet, then run there and ...

2. If you think unfinished games are a problem on the Xbox, I'm sure you would really love all of this "early access" bullshit on Steam.  It's literally unfinished games that openly admit they are unfinished, but will allow you to spend money to play the incomplete game as they develop it.  This has become a "legit" way to make money off of a tech demo and leave town with the cash.

3. The closest I ever came to liking Halo was this:

 

My experience with early access has been mostly positive. I followed Divinity OS2's early access (though I didn't play it) and it was very well received, and the game got rave reviews. I bought early access for World War 3, and despite an awful first two days of launch with overloaded servers, I've had no issues since yesterday afternoon - and the game is pretty fun. I was actually surprised by how fleshed out it was for early access. And they charged $28, but when the full game is released it will cost more and early access participants won't have to pay further. Early access and Kickstarter have become pretty widespread within independent game development. There are some cases of mismanaged money and/or inability to deliver products, but I don't see that being a norm. Anything that allows indie devs to more easily develop/deliver products is overall good for gaming IMO.

I will not pre-order an EA or Ubisoft game (generally), but I have no problem giving an indie studio a small bit of cash to help them along the process. Kingdom Come turned out to be amazing (never had early access, just Kickstarter) and I'm enjoying WW3 quite a bit. This is the Battlefield we all wanted BFV to be.

I believe Age of Conan was (is?) early access and a lot of people play that. I'm sure there are other examples.

Agreed re: Halo. Love that track. I played through Halo 2 and thought it was fine. I downloaded a Halo 1 trial on PC around when it came out, I was pretty young and don't remember why I didn't just buy it, but I do recall the even though the trial only let you play through 1 single player mission, it allowed unlimited multiplayer play. Really cool, but of course that sort of trial set up wouldn't happen today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, not all Early access games are a disaster, or a scam, but if you take a look at Steam, for every early access game you know of, there are 100 you never heard of.  I don't mean that as you personally, I mean like anybody who isn't an absolute freak can't keep up with all of the early access games because they are legion. For ever one with a good rep, there are 10 with the general feeling of being abandoned.   As a concept, early access is awesome.  In execution, it is abused and exploited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Slightly relevant to our conversation @Iron MikeyJ but Fallout 76 is getting absolutely obliterated by critics and consumers alike. Apparently it's an atrocious mess of bugs and has some content problems, especially at end-game levels.

I would posit this is really the exception to the standard though. For a AAA release, this level of disgust is rarely reflected in critics/community. Bethesda has always been a developer that seems to value content/story/etc. over technical adeptness, but it seems 76 is an extreme example, even for them. The good thing is they're really being called out on it by pretty much every source. Even the people who like the game for what it is agree it should not have been released in this state.

I would hope Bethesda can learn from this experience, as I'd much rather 76 be junk than Starfield or ES6.

I've been reading FO reddit to keep up with what's going on, and a user summed it up nicely:

Quote

What happened the last time Bethesda stopped churning out our favorite big open world RPGs? They tried to mix it up with a multiplayer dungeon crawler, and a piratey Tomb Raider inspired action adventure game. They went nearly bankrupt and finally went all out and released Morrowind to critical and financial acclaim. They continued to churn out blockbusters, each one exponentially more successful than it's predecessor. Now, drunk with success, they're experimenting again, and the results are less than savory.

 

Edited by OmarBradley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

Slightly relevant to our conversation @Iron MikeyJ but Fallout 76 is getting absolutely obliterated by critics and consumers alike. Apparently it's an atrocious mess of bugs and has some content problems, especially at end-game levels.

I would posit this is really the exception to the standard though. For a AAA release, this level of disgust is rarely reflected in critics/community. Bethesda has always been a developer that seems to value content/story/etc. over technical adeptness, but it seems 76 is an extreme example, even for them. The good thing is they're really being called out on it by pretty much every source. Even the people who like the game for what it is agree it should not have been released in this state.

I would hope Bethesda can learn from this experience, as I'd much rather 76 be junk than Starfield or ES6.

I've been reading FO reddit to keep up with what's going on, and a user summed it up nicely:

 

😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/10/2018 at 4:37 PM, Iron MikeyJ said:

Another thing about modern games that bums me out, is sacrificing a great single player or local CO OP for online multiplayer. I have nothing against online multiplayer, and if you love it, more power to ya. But it seems like THAT is the focus now, and the "traditional" aspects are becoming an after thought, or in some cases, a nonfactor. 

Take Friday the 13th and Dead by Daylight for example. I genuinely LOVE the premise of those games, and I wouldn't say "get rid of the online aspect," but they seem to be missing out on some REALLY great gaming possibilities. As a fan of F13, Halloween, Nightmare on elm street, etc to have some REALLY quality story modes, that let you relive the films...  That would be BEYOND epic. They just seem perfect for a video game retelling of all of those films. Sure it would cost more money for development, but the end results would be AMAZING. Those would be console sellers for me (and many others I'm sure). As it stands, they are both good games, but a little incomplete imo. They were designed from the ground up for online play. At least F13th had SOME (limited) offline and single player aspects, but only enough for a few days (at most) worth of entertainment. 

My point in this is... Once the servers for these online games go off line (and they will), the game becomes lost to time. Which is really a shame. 20 years from now, games like these will ONLY be a thing from memory (or online videos). You wont be able to toss it into your machine and play it anymore. That's just sad imo. It's the untalked about reality of the current generation of gaming. That's honestly one of the BIGGEST reasons why games and systems from the Xbox, Ps2, and Gamecube and EARLIER generations WILL ALWAYS be the most collectable. They represent the era of physical media, and games that will last forever. Start your collections now my friends.

Amen for that. Man, I would give a testicle for another lovecraftian Quake SP, just  like what they are doing with the new Doom games. Quake champions is kinda cool and shit and the series was always strong with MP. But, godammit, there's still people making Quake 1 maps to this day and update engines (just look at Quakespasm and arcane dimensions)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 8:55 PM, OmarBradley said:

Slightly relevant to our conversation @Iron MikeyJ but Fallout 76 is getting absolutely obliterated by critics and consumers alike. Apparently it's an atrocious mess of bugs and has some content problems, especially at end-game levels.

I would posit this is really the exception to the standard though. For a AAA release, this level of disgust is rarely reflected in critics/community. Bethesda has always been a developer that seems to value content/story/etc. over technical adeptness, but it seems 76 is an extreme example, even for them. The good thing is they're really being called out on it by pretty much every source. Even the people who like the game for what it is agree it should not have been released in this state.

I would hope Bethesda can learn from this experience, as I'd much rather 76 be junk than Starfield or ES6.

Bethesda's faux pas is reaching staggering levels. In addition to the unstable servers, buggy gameplay, and content issues, Bethesda is dealing with a slew of new problems (that were pretty avoidable).

People who ordered the Power Armor Edition ($200) received a nylon carrying bag instead of the canvas carrying bag which was advertised with the edition (and was still advertised that way well after release) - the nylon bag was apparently of considerably noticeable low quality compared to canvas. A Bethesda Store employee responded saying something like, "The materials (canvas) were too difficult to source. We have no plans to change this." Naturally, the already frustrated community was very upset. Then Bethesda-proper put out a statement saying, "The store employee was a contract employee and does not know our plans. We were unable to secure materials for the canvas bags. Everyone who ordered the Power Armor Edition is entitled to receive 500 Atoms (micro-transaction currency, $5 value), please contact support to receive them." This enraged the community further, prompting jokes about how canvas was so difficult to source and there must be a canvas shortage, etc. and pointed out you can order canvas bags from certain manufacturers in bulk for about $5 per bag...

Bethesda finally released a statement a few days ago saying they were ordering the canvas bags and would let anyone who received the 500 Atoms keep them as well. OK, took them a few tries, but they made it right (after a pretty significant outcry).

Well, they released a patch on December 4th and apparently it included a bunch of gameplay changes (mostly nerfs that were very unpopular with the community) that were omitted from the patch notes. This prompted a further response from the community and lots of anger that game mechanics people enjoyed were being nerfed when the game still has awful performance issues, gamebreaking bugs, unstable servers, and exploitable content.

THEN, yesterday it was revealed that Bethesda somehow accidentally leaked personal information (name, address, some CC info) of everyone who bought the Power Armor Edition/or filed a support ticket. The form of the leak was somehow their customer service software sent a copy of every ticket submitted by Power Armor Edition recipients, to random players' email accounts. Turns out all of the tickets were viewable through Bethesda's customer support website, not in email accounts.

Pretty nuts. And sad. There is a considerable anti-Bethesda bandwagon forming in the gaming community. Some of it is regarding the healthy competition from CDPR, R*, Ubisoft, etc. who have all recently put out well received products and haven't had similar marketing/communications issues. Really hope Bethesda comes back from this with force in Starfield, they have a long road ahead of them in regaining a large portion of the gaming community's goodwill.

Edited by OmarBradley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/6/2018 at 5:46 PM, OmarBradley said:

Bethesda's faux pas is reaching staggering levels. In addition to the unstable servers, buggy gameplay, and content issues, Bethesda is dealing with a slew of new problems (that were pretty avoidable).

People who ordered the Power Armor Edition ($200) received a nylon carrying bag instead of the canvas carrying bag which was advertised with the edition (and was still advertised that way well after release) - the nylon bag was apparently of considerably noticeable low quality compared to canvas. A Bethesda Store employee responded saying something like, "The materials (canvas) were too difficult to source. We have no plans to change this." Naturally, the already frustrated community was very upset. Then Bethesda-proper put out a statement saying, "The store employee was a contract employee and does not know our plans. We were unable to secure materials for the canvas bags. Everyone who ordered the Power Armor Edition is entitled to receive 500 Atoms (micro-transaction currency, $5 value), please contact support to receive them." This enraged the community further, prompting jokes about how canvas was so difficult to source and there must be a canvas shortage, etc. and pointed out you can order canvas bags from certain manufacturers in bulk for about $5 per bag...

Bethesda finally released a statement a few days ago saying they were ordering the canvas bags and would let anyone who received the 500 Atoms keep them as well. OK, took them a few tries, but they made it right (after a pretty significant outcry).

Well, they released a patch on December 4th and apparently it included a bunch of gameplay changes (mostly nerfs that were very unpopular with the community) that were omitted from the patch notes. This prompted a further response from the community and lots of anger that game mechanics people enjoyed were being nerfed when the game still has awful performance issues, gamebreaking bugs, unstable servers, and exploitable content.

THEN, yesterday it was revealed that Bethesda somehow accidentally leaked personal information (name, address, some CC info) of everyone who bought the Power Armor Edition/or filed a support ticket. The form of the leak was somehow their customer service software sent a copy of every ticket submitted by Power Armor Edition recipients, to random players' email accounts. Turns out all of the tickets were viewable through Bethesda's customer support website, not in email accounts.

Pretty nuts. And sad. There is a considerable anti-Bethesda bandwagon forming in the gaming community. Some of it is regarding the healthy competition from CDPR, R*, Ubisoft, etc. who have all recently put out well received products and haven't had similar marketing/communications issues. Really hope Bethesda comes back from this with force in Starfield, they have a long road ahead of them in regaining a large portion of the gaming community's goodwill.

The saga continues.

A new exploit/bug has been discovered that allows players to steal each others' weapons. Apparently, all you have to do is get someone to accept a "Trade" offer and open the Trade pop-up/window; not sure what steps follow after that, but apparently it's easy enough that players are incessantly following other players and spamming them with Trade requests to steal weapons.

Players are also now taking issue with the Atom Store (FO76's micro-transaction interface) - allegedly, Bethesda raised prices in the store after giving out the 500 Atoms for the nylon bag compensation. Combined with the fact prices in the store were already a bit high, this has enraged the player base further. Things like armor paint jobs, emote skins (not new emotes! just emote skins) are costing $10-$20. That's 1/6th - 1/3rd the price of the entire game for some of these cosmetics. And of course the game is still a buggy, unstable, end-game contentless mess. I really don't know what Bethesda is thinking, it's been one PR debacle after another, and after the first few issues in November they came out with an apologetic message to the community about communication going forward and weekly update posts and yadda yadda yadda... but there doesn't appear to be any difference in their PR/game maintenance approach.

And honestly, the more I think about it, I am not as comfortable with Bethesda's approach to micro-transactions as I initially indicated months ago. Cosmetic micro-transactions in shooters/fighting games/sports games make a lot of sense. But RPGs are supposed to be about customization and the player creating their experience - this creativity of the player is stifled when a lot of color options, armor skins, and furniture items are held behind a paywall. I think there is a way for Bethesda to monetize this "game as a service" in a fair way, but this is definitely not it.

If an admin or mod wants to cut these last few posts out and start a new thread on the topic of Fallout 76 that would make sense, but at the same time if this keeps going this way, "Bethesda-style sandbox open world RPG" may well be a genre I thought I'd play forever that dies a premature death :(.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

@Iron MikeyJ I've been thinking more about this discussion and I think we were arguing past each other a bit, which was mostly due to my argument, not yours. I've spent a lot more time in gaming "communities" over the last 6 months than I usually do, and it's caused me to rethink about this debate.

I still don't think it's as black and white as "publisher = greedy and developers = malicious" in terms of purposefully shipping malfunctioning or incomplete products. But there does seem to be a trend within AAA gaming and certain genres. I think the trend has always existed to a degree, but it's culminating now given the increased complexity of AAA game development and the massively increased size of the market compared to 15-20 years ago.

Experiencing Anthem has certainly pushed me further in this direction and I've heard pretty much every looter/shooter had a similar launch with bugs, small amounts of content, and stupid design decisions. Multiplayer games also present a slew of issues on their own, regardless of genre, and Anthem and other recent AAA MP releases are suffering from similar ailments. But I still don't think this is malicious or industry-wide. That being said, it is a problem that needs addressing and I was wrong to completely discount it previously in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...