I don't know what games you play with your iPads but it sounds interesting.

An updated iPad with the ability to add a keyboard and a mouse? Thats called a Laptop - been around since the 80s m8.

That's about exactly what I thought.  What I like about battle.net is, it counteracts a lot of cheating.  Your data is on the server, where you can't hack it up.  I could foresee even turn-based games storing data on the server in an attempt to stop the whole save/reload crap.  Then things like Metaverse could gain a little more credibility, or people could download Civ IV maps and play some games apples-to-apples, or play multiplayer without having to literally sit there and wait for the other guys' turn.  This could be what was meant by "cloud computing is gaming's future".  I like pogo.com's model as well, but the problem there is, their games are Java web launch, and that is very slow and has to cater to the slowest computer out there.  People want to play Company of Heroes on their beefy overclocked, 3D, SLI Nvidia cards displaying on their twin 24" monitors.

Hi there, let me introduce you to a genre gaming called MMOs. These games rely on people paying to maintain their existence and services and frequent updates. This of course means that these games receive an extraordinary amount of support and customer service and quality products because otherwise people would not purchase them... right? Not... The crap get puts on the shelf and sold as single-player and multiplayer games still exists in MMOs. The companies are barely motivated beyond grabbing as many millions as they can get in the first month of release and then watch them perform a mass exodus in a couple of months. Customers service is lacking, buggy and incomplete releases are the norm because the companies run out of money and demand customers pay for their products right away so they can finish them (and amazingly enough people do), there have been games shut down within 3 months, banning is frequenton their forums, hacks are a problem... you name it they have it.

MMOs remind me of a line from a Jurassic Park, about having all the problems of major theme park and zoo combined, well MMOs have all the problems of other games and then some and you pay per play, or pay per period and that is not an experience that a lot of gamers want to be a part of. It's available now. Hell I even liked some MMOs and I can tell that that business model leads to some of the most greedy, poor excuse examples of gaming I have ever seen. Allods wanted to sell it's player's items in the cash shop at the tune of 7 thousand dollars. Cities XL crashed and dived within three months. Alganon had such a terrible launch, they're pretty much trying to relaunch the game. So while this is not cloud computing, it is certainly a pay to play model and it is not fairy tale story for gamers.

You're entering dangerous territory here.  Using 'Cloud' gaming as a method of DRM, and believe me it's being discussed somewhere, forces players to pay a subscription fee for their games - and if its DRM that means its mandatory - there will be no boxed version, otherwise us filthly pirates would be able to pirate it.  This isn't just the removal of the retail market, like Digital Distribution, this is the ability to put a price on everything and will most likely be abused because of the lack of additional options.

We've already seen the invention of the DLC model; no more free content, which has lead to no more mod support and the removal of the ability for players to customise their experience.  Think I'm going to far?  Modern Warfare 2 changed from dedicated servers to P2P to prevent the use of mods or custom made levels to force PC Users to pay for DLC like console players have to.  The only thing given for free are bug fixes.  Now imagine a game is broken down even further.  You want single player? No problem, that's US$19.99 a month.  Want multiplayer for the same game? Sure champ, that's an extra US$39.99 a month.  Want that new DLC Map Pack? Ha, too easy - that'll be an additional US$1.99 a month.  However, do you honestly think it'll stop there?  I imagine we'll see the 'Silver' and 'Gold' subscription models.  Want those super high end fancy graphics?  Well, that costs the companies extra you see, because their computers are doing the work, and as is the norm extra costs for them mean extra costs for you.  A Silver subscription costs you nothing extra, however those graphics settings are locked to the medium level.  Want better? That'll be an additional US$9.99 a month.  Hell, want to be put on the priority list for a server?  Want to make sure you always get in a game rather than a que (think Fileplanet) well champ that's an extra US$9.99 a month.  And they'll find ways to make money off of everything else.  And forget mod support - if every tom, dick, and harry was making mods they'd need to have servers for each and every one of them, and they'd have to process the lot.  Mods are gone.


Do you honestly think this type of self-regulating content control is going to work in favour of gamers?  Companies like Activision have already told the gaming public they intend to only support large $100,000,000.00 franchises that can be milked every year, on every platform, indefinately.  The move to 'Cloud' gaming would only further remove new games from the market due to the cost/risk ratio provided by having the service process everything.  The industry would need move towards Episodic gaming to sustain itself.  Any Episode that didn't sell well enough would be pulled form the service to save costs, and only the successful ones would continue.  Did you like Deus Ex? Often called one of the greatest games ever made?  Too bad, it doesn't make enough money - it's dropped from the service.  Game gone.  Didn't get to finish it? Too bad, it's not cost effective to continue.  You can chose between Call Of Duty X: Future Warfare IV: Redemption, The Sims V (with 21 optional expansion packs at $19.99 per month each), Guitar Hero 19, Left 4 Dead III and World of Warcraft II (with 4 optional expansion packs at $19.99 per month each).  Don't like them?  Buy an Xbox 3, Playstation IV or Nintendo Whatever you filthly pirate, because that's all you're getting.

Well said, Don, well said indeed. If you would be so inclined, I'd love your input Here.

I rare agreement from me as well.

Let's not forget, piracy isn't just external. How do you think movies and albums and games wind up hitting the public before they are even released. There doesn't seem to be a lot of love between employers and employees in the game industry, especially if success means long hours to layoff. There are leaks in the system, and when there is a leak, that copy gets pirated and hacked... this is not going to be a perfect DRM system. I think cloud computing is a DRM system trying to be disguised as something else. Only when cloud saves and etc are an option for paying customers will I think otherwise. It's not really a service if its forced on you.

There will be "Cloud Saves" , Nesrie. At least if you're talking about being able to save your game progress. Most people don't have the time to sit down and play through a whole game all at once. As such players will have to save their progress. I know OnLive will have lots of games at launch that require you to "Save your game" in Mid play. People still need to eat, sleep, and go to work and school.

Don's completely right though. I say more or less the same thing in a few posts and my bigger post on the subject. The only people in the Gaming Community who will benefit from "Cloud Gaming" are the companies that run it. My only worry is that it will prove so successful there won't be any consoles made anymore and there won't be a need for average consumers to buy High End PC's. All the consoles and their games will be integrated into their own "Cloud Systems".

I hate to say it, but if it works lag-free, its a fantastic alternative to having to buy a new Xbox or a new Playstation.  Buying one console for the rest of your natural life is a great deal for the end user... the problem comes with the repercussions for the industry which in turn hurt the end user experience.  We're seeing the move even today.  Ubisoft's Always Online DRM, Valve's Cloud service which saves your settings for your games, even Digital Distribution.  Cloud is the next logical step.

It's not a question of 'if', companies like EA Games and Activision Blizzard have already laid the precedents down to ensure they will abuse the system and the absolute, unquestionable control it offers the people in charge.  It's merely a question of 'when'.  When that change happens, I'll be dropping my 'Piracy is unacceptable' creedo.  Our only hope then will be an industry wide crash, similar to what happened with Atari's ET, to re-set things.

 

You completely misunderstood what i was saying. I have heard of cloud saves. I know what they are and how they work. Here is the difference though, you have some publishers mentioning cloud saves a service, as an option, as something that allows you to save to your own box and to their server, aka locally and externally, the benefit being a new box, no problem, no transfers, just grab it from your account. then you have Ubisoft cloud saves only, no internet connection, yanking of the server, fu paying customer, buy our new games. one is a service, one is DRM both fall under clouding saving. I have no idea where you got the idea that i was saying if there will be cloud saves, they have them now.

as if someone wont be able to hack the cloud.  damn water drops are are rusting out my sword!!!

Ahh, yes, I see now. I wasn't sure if you knew exactly what that kind of "Cloud Save" was. It seems you do . My mistake.

Yes, hackers can try to hack the Cloud. The difference is when a hacker tries to hack the Cloud the Police will be able to trace them, or the companies will trace them and hand their address to the Police, and the hacker will go to jail for trying to hack into a protected system to steal video games.

The FBI and CIA track down hackers attempting to hack government systems every day. I'm sure a Multi-Million Dollar gaming company can do the same thing and they probably can do it with better tech then the government..lol.

As Nesrie already mentioned, Piracy would have to become more internal than external; developers or people in the company releasing the game to the internet and allowing it to be pirated.  This happens now, again as Nesrie mentioned, however it would become the sole supply of pirated games if Cloud Gaming was adopted as the normal method of game delivery.  The problem is that companies would have the ability to restrict access to the final code, or minimise the list of possible people, apply some reasoning and prosecute.  Gone is the provided anonmity of the 'internet pirate' - they'd know it was their own employees and the backlash would be immese.  Employees would then be treated like criminals; like the way Activision treats its employees now.

It's difficult to respond to all of the sentiments at once, but here goes. In regards to MMO's being a pay-for-play model and that they are not well supported, I almost agree. The one way that I sever my agreement is that they are better supported than any other games out there. Excepting only those games that have allowed community-based support (I can't say anything bad about such standards except for they have horrible tax consequences to the IP holder).

As for the idea that I would be upset that there is a mandatory subscription fee, I'm scoffing. I welcome a subscription fee. I hate that I have to pay full price for a game that I may play three times and then never play again (DoW2). Or a game that I buy at full price and then because they're scrambling to recover losses or make final gains, they sell for a third of what I paid for it (DG). You have to remember that with subscription fees comes new opportunities for competition (for example, groups like Team 17 might offer all of their games ever made for one subscription fee).

As for abuse of fees for the cost of gaming this is already present in the ever-increasing introductory cost of games. You have a group of people in a small office meeting room that have some schmo pretending that he poured over the numbers to come up with the ideal price, when in reality, he got on Amazon and figured out how much the competitors were charging and he added five bucks. Then the publishers negotiate the right to put their surcharge on it and to have certain promotions. This system has to stop. It is not based on market demand as there is no immediate indication of whether people would stop purchasing at a certain price. An immediate indicator of a bad price is when 3000 people who were subscribing suddenly stop paying one month.

I can't speak to the security of pirates because for every better mousetrap there will live a stainless steel rat.

Well this is a hit or miss. Some MMOs have a long life and great support, great communities. Some stand alone games also have great support and great communities. My point is, however, not that MMOs are bad, but that they prove, so far, that just because there is a subscription involved, doesn't mean that the level of support, the quality of a game, that anything is going to be better. More money to the publisher/developer does not equate to a better gaming experience for gamers necessarily.

Please show me, outside of so called F2P MMO games, where we're looking out subscription fees INSTEAD of box prices. I have had this beef with MMOs for awhile, that they want their 50-60 bucks up front PLUS sub fees right out the door. I just don't see publishers walking out into a room and saying hey, here's the thing, we want to sell you Dragon Age or MW 2 not for a 50-60 dollar price tag but 10 dollars a month even though we know that most of you will burn through the game in one or two months. Or maybe they lump them together and toss in some throw away games and it's 60 bucks a month for one AAA title and bunch of crap no one wants.

 

I think the pricing for games in general is all over the map. Some games are sold for 10x more than they are worth, fail and leave the customer with a fancy toaster and no support, others are very well made but get no attention because they don't make sexy cover art for IGN, Gamestop, or any of the traditional places games are marketed and don't hit retail shelves at all.

I couldn't agree more.  We're seeing profiteering and unchecked greed on such a level that it makes me weep for the future of the industry.  Companies like Activison are now charging more for their games than anyone else, and are using services like Steam to make insane amounts of money due to the removal of costs while keeping the pricing the same.  They are also using Regions coding to rape entire nations.  With Cloud computing, I could only see this being worse.  There are no fairness checks, no standards, and they are making too much money to stop.


Quote of the day.  Mind if I use that?