E3 Thread - 2013 Edition

[Morgoth]

 

GOTY....oh wait it's just a techdemo.

[Nepenthe]

Well, think about how they did the Missing Link DLC.

That pretty much installs itself as a "seperate" game as is because of the changes to the engine they'd made, so I'd guess the Director's Cut would most likely be similar if it's done as an "update" style of dlc.

 

 

Well, on PS3 at least it installs itself within the game, but accessible through the menu. It's still a download for the main game and thus subject to the download size limits Microsoft imposes (but Sony doesn't, and which were circumvented in the case of the last ME3 DLC, anyway). I don't think they'll do it that way, unless they somehow manage to recycle the old assets with the new lighting model... :/

[WDeranged]

 

GOTY....oh wait it's just a techdemo.

 

Beyond a certain point I wonder why they don't just use actors...amusing though.

[Malcador]

I'm sure that sounded better in his head before he said it.

[pmp10]

Supposedly PS4 will have the same DRM as Xbone.

If true I wonder will people care.

Edited June 12, 2013 by pmp10

[Mamoulian War]

 

And all these people are now pissed at Microsoft...

It took them 20 years???

 

 

Some things needs time :D

[Morgoth]

I'm just gonna drop this in here now, watch later:

 

[BruceVC]

Console is not a PC...

 

Sharing games between friends on consoles were always part of the gaming culture...

 

And you could even share your PC games with your friends before Steam and similar **** came...

 

And there are still people who have real friends in neighbourhood...

 

And there are still people who have real families in neighbourhood...

 

And there are still people who own more than one piece of the same console...

 

And there are still people who do not have stable broadband internet connection...

 

And all these people are now pissed at Microsoft...

 

 

What Mamoulian said. But I started typing first.

 

Thanks for the  response guys, I guess I'm just use to a business model where developers and publishers want to generate revenue through sales of there products. Obviously this doesn't apply to Console games where its fine for groups of people to play a game without paying for it.

 

But as I mentioned I'm use to the PC gaming business model so the console gaming method of sales is foreign to me

Edited June 12, 2013 by BruceVC

[Serrano]

 

Thanks for the  response guys, I guess I'm just use to a business model where developers and publishers want to generate revenue through sales of there products. Obviously this doesn't apply to Console games where its fine for groups of people to play a game without paying for it.

 

But as I mentioned I'm use to the PC gaming business model so the console gaming method of sales is foreign to me

 

 

I happen to agree with you (Mamoulian's post was shorter when I replied) but Microsoft are taking away the standard practice for consumers to be able to share their games with their friends, an option which has been available to people for decades. We own our games a little bit less now because we're more limited with what we can do with them. Microsoft have every right to do that and it's in the best interest of their shareholders but that's little comfort to us and is the other side of the argument.

 

One of the reasons there wasn't such a backlash when PC games switched over to being bound to accounts and machines (but there was one) is because steam and digital sales took everyone by surprise with just how widespread they would become and it happened relativly slowly. Also PC games were effectivly being phased out by retail in favour of the much more profitable console games so digital, bound-only-to-you sales were helping people have access to games rather than limiting them. It's also widely accepted that digital sales can't be allowed to be shared out or swapped or sold 2nd hand otherwise the publishers would literally go out of business. That practice transitioning to physical discs happened slowly, as I recall people were unhappy about it when it was first introduced but we grudgingly accepted it and today most people, myself included, don't care. I imagine it will be a rougher transition for consoles because they're trying to do it all at once, and again, being able to swap and lend out games and rent them from local shops is a decades old practice, people are going to miss that when it's gone (and for good reason) but they will eventually get over it. It still sucks though.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Serrano

[HoonDing]

It seems in the next gen, the ubiquitous corridors will be replaced by open world.

 

Now there's talk of Mirror's Edge 2 being one too: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/413684/mirrors-edge-2-is-open-world-says-ea-exec/

[entrerix]

 

 

Thanks for the  response guys, I guess I'm just use to a business model where developers and publishers want to generate revenue through sales of there products. Obviously this doesn't apply to Console games where its fine for groups of people to play a game without paying for it.

 

But as I mentioned I'm use to the PC gaming business model so the console gaming method of sales is foreign to me

 

 

 

it might be easier if you think of it like this: when you buy a dvd you expect to be able to play it on your dvd player, or bring it to a friends/parents house to watch together.  this is how console games have always worked as well.  not only do developers know that multiple people may play a console game, its actually encouraged in console games to play together - games are frequently made for multiple people all to play on the same screen at once (called splitscreen) but only ONE copy of the game is needed.  its been like this since the 80's, and console gamers are a pretty nostalgic group of people in my experience

[Mamoulian War]

haha

 

[Calax]

Apparently one of the kotaku guys got yanked aside after he took a picture of the laptops that were running the Forza demo's at their event.

[alanschu]

 

it might be easier if you think of it like this: when you buy a dvd you expect to be able to play it on your dvd player, or bring it to a friends/parents house to watch together.  this is how console games have always worked as well.  not only do developers know that multiple people may play a console game, its actually encouraged in console games to play together - games are frequently made for multiple people all to play on the same screen at once (called splitscreen) but only ONE copy of the game is needed.  its been like this since the 80's, and console gamers are a pretty nostalgic group of people in my experience

 

 

I find split screen much less common now.  I mean, old computer games used to have split screen multiplayer as well.  Consoles historically had the "it's much, much more difficult to copy the software" so they never had to adopt things like CD-Keys, manual key word verification, and the like.  These things came into computer games because games were trivially easy to copy to another disc, and then finally required HDD installation.  It was painless to buy a game, install it, and discard the disks/discs.  So copy protection came in.  With cartridge format, the ability to copy and play this data was much more difficult.

 

The real issue is that Microsoft has pushed to letting the game be installed, and removing the CD check requirement.  The only way that this can be implemented is if you have some form of copy protection.

 

For myself, it seems like the inertia of console games has had it lumbering along the path established by PC gaming.  I'm curious how different they will remain, going forward.

[AwesomeOcelot]

New PC games have split-screen, more have local co-op on the same screen. There's been a decline in local co-op on consoles as well, but it's been slower because consoles have been much slower to adopt online gaming. The break in this trend is casual motion and rhythm games that tend to all be local co-op. PC has had LAN gaming which makes way more sense than split-screen for the popular competitive genres, FPS and RTS. I doubt this practice is what's getting people upset about DRM, people could always bring their console if a friend has all the leads and pads, and if it's a good game both friends like, they probably both own it.

 

People are upset because they dislike having to pay for games, they'd rather not so they're upset about losing the second hand market and lending to friends. People would be upset if Sony cracked down on PSN account sharing. The same complaints didn't happen for PC because piracy is easier, faster, and cheaper than the second hand market or lending to friends. If you're going to not give revenue to the people who make the games you might as well not give any money at all. The second hand market was already not a factor in PC gaming, so no body mourned its loss.

 

---

 

Any news on the PS4 and its HDD? I've heard Sony said it's replaceable. Are they going to use it to cache game data? Discs are slow, consoles have had awful loading times compared to PC.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The PC crowd just has better friends.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response guys, I guess I'm just use to a business model where developers and publishers want to generate revenue through sales of there products. Obviously this doesn't apply to Console games where its fine for groups of people to play a game without paying for it.

 

But as I mentioned I'm use to the PC gaming business model so the console gaming method of sales is foreign to me

 

I happen to agree with you (Mamoulian's post was shorter when I replied) but Microsoft are taking away the standard practice for consumers to be able to share their games with their friends, an option which has been available to people for decades. We own our games a little bit less now because we're more limited with what we can do with them. Microsoft have every right to do that and it's in the best interest of their shareholders but that's little comfort to us and is the other side of the argument.

 

One of the reasons there wasn't such a backlash when PC games switched over to being bound to accounts and machines (but there was one) is because steam and digital sales took everyone by surprise with just how widespread they would become and it happened relativly slowly. Also PC games were effectivly being phased out by retail in favour of the much more profitable console games so digital, bound-only-to-you sales were helping people have access to games rather than limiting them. It's also widely accepted that digital sales can't be allowed to be shared out or swapped or sold 2nd hand otherwise the publishers would literally go out of business. That practice transitioning to physical discs happened slowly, as I recall people were unhappy about it when it was first introduced but we grudgingly accepted it and today most people, myself included, don't care. I imagine it will be a rougher transition for consoles because they're trying to do it all at once, and again, being able to swap and lend out games and rent them from local shops is a decades old practice, people are going to miss that when it's gone (and for good reason) but they will eventually get over it. It still sucks though.

I think the main reason there isn't such a backlash over digtal sales being bound is that after sometimes less than a month you can get games on steam and such for 75% off. that's unheard of in the console market. Just looking at the Moneysaver on Kotaku, you'll have $50 pc games on for 15-20 dollars, or $30 games on for $5, but the biggest console sales are $60 games on for $45-50.

[sesobebo]

 We own our games a little bit less now because we're more limited with what we can do with them.

 

you won't even own a console, let alone games. you'll be getting it on lease.

[Morgoth]

[Keyrock]

LOL

 

Last minute PR decisions or not, Sony came out of E3 smelling like roses, while Microsoft, they came out of it smelling like... something else.

[Calax]

Well it looks like E3 has not been kind to EA. looking at their stick prices, they've been dropping pretty intensely since the conference. Same with acti, but GameStop seems to be doing well.

[alanschu]

I'd be hesitant to ascribe the stock prices to anything E3 specific, and not just "the stock market behaves in mysterious ways."

 

Microsoft is the one getting skraked over coals, and Sony's stock has been pretty flat despite some feelnig they are the "clear winners."

[pmp10]

One of the reasons there wasn't such a backlash when PC games switched over to being bound to accounts and machines (but there was one) is because steam and digital sales took everyone by surprise with just how widespread they would become and it happened relativly slowly.

The only reason steam won out is because there are no high profile DRM-less PC games anymore.

If publisher doesn't have their own platform they may as well use steam.

It's not a given that the same logic will prevail with consoles as some competition is still happening there.

[Gfted1]

The only reason steam won out is because there are no high profile DRM-less PC games anymore.

If publisher doesn't have their own platform they may as well use steam.

It's not a given that the same logic will prevail with consoles as some competition is still happening there.

 

I know you said high profile games, but do you think the recent trend of Kickstarter games being released DRM free on GoG will change this?

[Nordicus]

Before every game was bound to some publisher's own DRM system or was a Steamworks game, we had the infancy of DRM where the DRM systems were so horrid and clunky that they put modern GFWL to shame. 3 max installs that deducted one whenever you switched a single component, StarForce wrecking computers' insides, DRM systems generally being massive system hogs.

 

Things can be better, but on PC, they once were worse, much, much worse.