Published on April 6, 2010 By Island Dog In PC Gaming

Arstechnica has an article up which talks about the future of gaming and its relation to the “cloud”.  It brings up some interesting points, and also include some feedback from Stardock’s own Brad Wardell.

"The concept of virtual storage is to let a player’s 'stuff' become ubiquitous—accessible from anywhere. This way, they don’t have to worry about a new machine losing their mods or saved games or other key data," Stardock CEO and president Brad Wardell told Ars. "I am pretty convinced that it is going to become the dominant way for games to deal with transient data. When implemented correctly—that is, store it locally in the event the user loses 'Net access or the service is down, and store it on the cloud when possible—you end up with a much better customer experience while decreasing the support costs for the developer."

Read the full article over at Ars!


Comments (Page 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Apr 09, 2010


Quote of the day. Mind if I use that?

 

It's not mine. So feel free. =D

on Apr 09, 2010

ZehDon



Quoting Pfizzyhead,
reply 39
...The idea that pirates would have to pay for these facilities makes me happy...
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.




Quoting Pfizzyhead,
reply 39
...The current industry model does not support servicing a game past the burst purchasing phase after release. A model that is on a pay per play or pay per period system does. Such a system would also increase profit motivations for brand loyalty and companies like GPG would be scrambling to fix DG just to save face. Otherwise, players that would boycott particular brands would cause lease based carriers to be wary of signing those same brands. Putting the power in the consumer's hands is always a way to increase the power of the dollar and strengthen the market.
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.

 

I have read up to this point and I wanted to say great post. This is exactly what I was thinking. Prepare to pay

 

Be afraid be very afraid...

 

Great post

5 PagesFirst 3 4 5