RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[pmp10]

They're basically saying it's supposed to be the same as it is now with the current gen consoles, with publishers online passes and stuff. The difference is Sony games will get rid of them for their games.

 

We'll see though.

What they are saying is that publishers can mandate the same on PS4 that Microsoft demands for Xbox one.

This could essentially mean always-online on every game.

Sony may defend itself however they want but after E3 announcment most people will expect them to fight that practice.

[Nordicus]

They're basically saying it's supposed to be the same as it is now with the current gen consoles, with publishers online passes and stuff. The difference is Sony games will get rid of them for their games.

 

We'll see though.

Online passes? Nope, Sony will outright not allow them on PS4

 

Granted, they will use PS+ as a sort of replacement for online passes, but I expect Sony to handle multiplayer servers themselves because of it

Edited June 13, 2013 by Nordicus

[Azure79]

Seems like Sony made a splash at E3. It seems like when the time comes, I'll purchase a PS4. I mainly play on PC, but do enjoy some action game franchises on console. I usually buy used games for console, so it looks like PS4 is the way to go for now. 

[alanschu]

I'm not even sure Sony made a splash.  They just were preferred over a lot of what Microsoft was saying.

[Agiel]

My guess is that Sony's decision was more informed by the potential Japanese reaction to such a scheme than western backlash. After all, the Japanese games market isn't big on PC games save for dating sims, light novels, and H-Games, so the concept of serial keys, activation limits, and always-on may seem even more foreign and draconian to them than it is to westerners (unless someone here that's into Japanese PC gaming can enlighten me that the DRM situation is similar).

Edited June 13, 2013 by Agiel

[Azure79]

I actually didn't watch any E3 presentations and just read various articles, so you probably have a better sense of it. Yes, I do prefer what Sony is offering over MS. I let friends borrow and play my PS3 games all the time. What MS is offering just sounds too restrictive.

[alanschu]

The best way for MS to make that restriction work is to leverage their infrastructure and connectivity to provide something that they otherwise wouldn't get.

 

I think providing a place for people to sell their own used games (license transfer) would be an excellent feature, and as such this feature could also be extended as a way of lending games to people too (i.e. sell it for ultra cheap, if not free).

[Morgoth]

Wooo C&C

 

Meh.

 

Generals 2 is dead. Long live Generals 1!

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not even sure Sony made a splash.  They just were preferred over a lot of what Microsoft was saying.

 

The mainstream tech press, broadly speaking, seem to view Sony as the 'winners' of the big console reveals. I'm not even bothered about the gaming press, which is laughably in the pockets of the big publishers.

[alanschu]

Well, in a 2 horse race, if one of the horses is considered to stumble, then I guess yes, Sony are "winners" haha.

[Drowsy Emperor]

If any of them win we lose so I wouldn't rejoice just yet, if I was the pc gaming master race.

 

I had great faith in Sony to back a few "artistic" projects like they did with Ueda's SoC back in the day, which really gave credit to the notion that console gaming has more potential to deliver a unique experience than its usually given.

But that just didn't happen with the PS3. Even after so many years, truly great games on the PS3 are very few and the overall catalog diversity still is nowhere near the PS2.

No Ueda game either.

 

Still, I respect Sony more, because if you look at the XBox catalog for both XB consoles over the years, there is an overwhelming number of shooters relative to everything else. The north american audience has a much narrower taste on the whole and the developers are much less prone to experimentation than japanese ones, so my interests in the XBone were never high to begin with.

[Bendu]

Can't wait to play Rome II. Looks just awesome.

 

[Humanoid]

Well, in a 2 horse race, if one of the horses is considered to stumble, then I guess yes, Sony are "winners" haha.

It's starting to resemble not so much a horse race, but a three-way (or four, if you count Windows 8 ) Upper Class Twit of the Year race.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Humanoid

[Bendu]

Civ 5 next expansion looks very promising. It seems like they could finally fix the mess Jon Shafer left.

 

 

[alanschu]

Hadn't heard anything about this, sorry if it's a double post.

 

XBox "Family sharing" lets users share libraries with up to 10 people

 

By the sounds of it, it's not really "family" but just similar to those "My 10 people" plans phones have.

 

Article shares some potential reservations too.  Someone Cheezburger'd an infographic that seems to indicate that only 1 friend can play on a friend's library at one time, though presumably the owner of the game can still play regardless (i.e. it could effectively work as a "spawn copy" for MP gaming too).

[Serrano]

So basically they wait until right after I make my post about how everyone knows publishers can't let customers share digital copies of games or they'll go out of business before making a press release saying they're going to allow people to share digital copies of games. Is any further proof needed that Microsoft are evil?

[melkathi]

So basically they wait until right after I make my post about how everyone knows publishers can't let customers share digital copies of games or they'll go out of business before making a press release saying they're going to allow people to share digital copies of games. Is any further proof needed that Microsoft are evil?

 

Nope. It just shows that Project Prism is efficient and provides information not just to the government, while also proving that Microsoft puts great stock in your opinion

[Bendu]

20 minutes gameplay video by the German Civ community:

 

[Rosbjerg]

All I could think of as I saw that video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ygd41wO4-FY#t=73s

 

But interesting none the less, a DLC I'm acutally looking forward to..

[Drowsy Emperor]

I doubt its going to make the game much better. The core of the problem is 1UPT, every problem Civ V leads to it, from the economy, research to warfare.

 

By Shafer's own admission the concept is broken in Civ V and can't (really) be fixed.

 

Typically Firaxis expansions are a bunch of useful fixes and also commonly feature bloat.

[Drowsy Emperor]

All I could think of as I saw that video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ygd41wO4-FY#t=73s

 

But interesting none the less, a DLC I'm acutally looking forward to..

 

Woohoo Dylan Moran, I love that guy!  

[Bendu]

I can live with the 1UPT rule, though there would have been better solutions. The unhappiness system is much worser than the 1UPT rule. But the next expension will finally fix the unbalance between the warmonger and builder.

[Malcador]

http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/06/14/interview-warhammer-40000-eternal-crusades-miguel-caron-shares-his-vision-for-a-next-gen-mmorpg/

 

G: I can definitely see that a conflict exists, and when a game goes free to play, paying players always complain about the deterioration of the community.

 

M: Exactly. My idea, and what I’m going to implement is very true to the lore. The game is free to play, but we have four races controlled by the player, while one is controlled by us. Only one of the playable races will be free to play, while the other three will be buy to play like Guild Wars 2.

 

Actually, all four playable races are buy to play, but the Orks have an option which is free to play: the Ork boyz. If you want to play our game and you don’t want to spend a single cent, you can still access the whole game and do whatever you want without restriction, but you can only be an Ork Boy. You can’t be an Ork Nob or above…Those are buy to play as well even if we’ll have very affordable pricing, definitely cheaper than Guild Wars 2.

 

That said, Ork Boyz are going to be free, and they will be able to progress horizontally with skills and everything, but vertically, if you want to become an Ork Nob, you’ll have to buy it. The reason for that is because in order to be responsible to give orders and objectives to other players, we want you to be a committed player. In order to become a leader in our game, you’ll need to pay.

 

Otherwise, if you’re ok with being a grunt and experience everything, then you can be an Ork Boy, and the reason for that is that you need at least three to five Ork Boyz in the Warhammer 40k universe to kill a Space Marine. If we made Ork Boyz as powerful as Space Marines, everyone would hate us, because it would fly in the face of the lore.

 

One of the strengths of Orks is numbers. You never talk about one Ork. You talk about hordes of Orks. Thousands of them. To represent that in our game we need our Ork Boyz to be way more numerous than the other races. Having them as free to play allows us to achieve that.

 

The other reason is because the difference in personality between committed players and free players is exactly the same difference between the culture of Space Marines and Orks.

[melkathi]

http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/06/14/interview-warhammer-40000-eternal-crusades-miguel-caron-shares-his-vision-for-a-next-gen-mmorpg/

 

G: I can definitely see that a conflict exists, and when a game goes free to play, paying players always complain about the deterioration of the community.

 

M: Exactly. My idea, and what I’m going to implement is very true to the lore. The game is free to play, but we have four races controlled by the player, while one is controlled by us. Only one of the playable races will be free to play, while the other three will be buy to play like Guild Wars 2.

 

Actually, all four playable races are buy to play, but the Orks have an option which is free to play: the Ork boyz. If you want to play our game and you don’t want to spend a single cent, you can still access the whole game and do whatever you want without restriction, but you can only be an Ork Boy. You can’t be an Ork Nob or above…Those are buy to play as well even if we’ll have very affordable pricing, definitely cheaper than Guild Wars 2.

 

That said, Ork Boyz are going to be free, and they will be able to progress horizontally with skills and everything, but vertically, if you want to become an Ork Nob, you’ll have to buy it. The reason for that is because in order to be responsible to give orders and objectives to other players, we want you to be a committed player. In order to become a leader in our game, you’ll need to pay.

 

Otherwise, if you’re ok with being a grunt and experience everything, then you can be an Ork Boy, and the reason for that is that you need at least three to five Ork Boyz in the Warhammer 40k universe to kill a Space Marine. If we made Ork Boyz as powerful as Space Marines, everyone would hate us, because it would fly in the face of the lore.

 

One of the strengths of Orks is numbers. You never talk about one Ork. You talk about hordes of Orks. Thousands of them. To represent that in our game we need our Ork Boyz to be way more numerous than the other races. Having them as free to play allows us to achieve that.

 

The other reason is because the difference in personality between committed players and free players is exactly the same difference between the culture of Space Marines and Orks.

 

 

 

I haz wun word to sayz about dat:

'ERE WE GO! 'ERE WE GO! 'ERE WE GO!

 

[Oner]

I find the idea interesting, but I wonder how they're planning to address the fact that smurfs are by far the most popular faction and they'll have players in the droves? The lore-wise smallest faction?

 

Also, Tau plox. Don't care about the standard races much.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Oner