Why we need consoles

[Blue-IcE]

Hey Guys was thinking earlier after having played Diablo 3 and numerous other always online games i thought i'd give a look at why we actually do need consoles.

Let's say consoles go out altogether, and gaming only becomes available in cloud services like Steam, Origin, and the App Store. Well, what happens when the servers for those sites invariably get shut down? One day, services like Steam and Origin will no longer exist, or be extremely different than they are now. There's a good chance that one day the games you purchased will no longer be available. If they remove the DRM from those files before shutting down their servers, you are still stuck only being able to play that game on whatever device its downloaded onto. With consoles, you at least get a physical copy of the product you buy. Even if future consoles are no longer backwards compatible with older generation games, you can still always store your older consoles and bring them out when you want to play your older games.

Many gamers lament the fact that if you want to play all of the best games this generation, then you have to own all three consoles, as well as a state of the art PC, and perhaps portable systems. The amount of money you need to spend to be able to enjoy all these games is the biggest argument for why gaming consoles should make way for cloud gaming. However, it's the competition between the home console manufacterers that brought games to the level of quality they are at today. Going back to the days of Sega vs. Nintendo, to the current rivalry between Sony and Microsoft, the drive to outsell the competition is the reason that gaming is at its current graphical and artistic level of quality. Companies would have never been driven to increase the graphical power of their systems if they didn't have a competitor to one up. Without the need to have a killer app to sell your console on, we would have never gotten great modern franchises such as Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted and LittleBigPlanet. The downside may be flame wars between system fanboys, but that's more an argument against the mentality of gamers, and not the state of the industry.

WIthout consoles, gaming would no longer have a dedicated platform to call its own, and no longer have a dedicated audience to cater to. Many gamers may not be enthusiastic about having to shell out R4000 - R6000 (or more) for each next generation system, but if we want gaming to not only continue to support dedicated gamers, but continue to grow and evolve, we need consoles to be the culture for them to grow on.

[BladeMaster]

Jip. No-one arguing with you on that one buddy. You are correct. Here's your badge...

[Squirly]

Er... you realize that consoles these days are designed to go online, that future consoles will take that even further (Steams style), and there's essentially nothing stopping them from doing the same thing with Diablo 3 on any console they (may) port it to, that they're doing with the PC, right?

[Kharrak]

Console gaming = couch gaming.

Couch gaming is fantastic.

But I find the idea between "OMG STEAM SERVERS DIE" a flawed one. What happens when you lend a game to a friend, and never get it back? What about having a game stolen, or simply lost? What about having your physical copy irreparably damaged? The threat of steam servers shutting down is easily comparable to someone breaking in and stealing all your game stuff. With the exception that Steam has backups. Steam won't be around for ever? Well, storage devices change. Floppy devices, on which older games used to exist, are no longer used either. It's tremendously difficult to get older games to work, as well. Times, they change.

Owning a physical copy of a game doesn't prevent it from being "lost". In that sense, Steam provides a lot of freedom - I love the fact that I can uninstall a game with knowledge that I can just re-install it whenever I wish, without having to hunt for the CD. I love the fact that all the games are right there.

But I do fully agree that consoles provide a fantastic area for games in entirety, and the simplicity that comes with it - by which I mean not having to wrestle with PC tech support.

[Blue-IcE]

Er... you realize that consoles these days are designed to go online, that future consoles will take that even further (Steams style), and there's essentially nothing stopping them from doing the same thing with Diablo 3 on any console they (may) port it to, that they're doing with the PC, right?

Being designed to go online and actually "making you" play online is a whole different story. Yes nothing stops them from doing it, but so far nothing on the consoles have done this.

[Grendel]

I totally rebel against online-only games, and I wish more people would do so. Why should I pay to play a single player game that I already own? How can a server somewhere overseas decide that I'm not allowed to play a solo game that I paid R400 rand for? I think it's pretty ridiculous to torture honest gamers in the name of anti-piracy. I can guarantee you that Diablo III has already been pirated, online only or not, so whats the bloody use?

I also think the rumours that consoles will also go online only is pure BULLSH#T, and only sour talk from frustrated PC gamers.

[Toxxyc]

Console gaming = couch gaming/bed gaming

FTFY.

Anyway, if you're worried about always-online DRM for PC's, you're in for a surprise when always-online DRM's for next-gen consoles are to be announced. I promise you, it's coming. Also - games locked to specific consoles, online verification and those kind of "Steam" things aren't going to be left untouched by console manufacturers, and I think the biggest reason is to limit the second-hand market for their games. Sickeningly sad, but a possibility (and probability, I'd say).

I can guarantee you that Diablo III has already been pirated, online only or not, so whats the bloody use?

Diablo III has been pirated before it was even available in SA, to be perfectly honest. If you had the time, you'd have been able to torrent the fully functioning game for free, play and complete it without issues before the pre-order users get it at home in the same country. That's just how the cookie crumbles and that's the **** thing about paying too much for a game. I really want to try Diablo III, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay R400+ for a PC game with that amount of issues (servers and all that). And no, I'm not going to pirate the thing. I'll wait until the hype has passed and servers are more available, and I'll try again. I've got a friend who simply stopped playing the game as the only time he can play (the only time he has time) is after work at home when the servers are so full he gets kicked off every 10 minutes. He says he hasn't touched the game for days now, and is actually bored with it because of the issues. I'm like that. Throw me into a DRM-struggle to get something working and I'll simply leave the game be. Which is why I despise GFWL games with a passion. Ubisoft's DRM doesn't bother me, and I love Steam, but GFWL... Good crap no. Think it's one of the bigger things that ruined Fable III for me. May try it again sometime if I'm really desperate, but struggling for 3 hours (literally) trying to start a game I paid R349 for was simply uncalled for. Eh. :(

[Grendel]

I really want to try Diablo III, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay R400+ for a PC game with that amount of issues (servers and all that). (

I feel EXACTLY the same, and this is what totally baffles me: Don't they realise how many potential buyers they've lost with their online only DRM? I think think Diablo III would have been the biggest hit in gaming history, (gamers have been waiting 10 years for this) so why make such a stupid move? Or are they somehow earning money from people using their servers, or what? I really don't understand this...

[Kharrak]

I feel EXACTLY the same, and this is what totally baffles me: Don't they realise how many potential buyers they've lost with their online only DRM? I think think Diablo III would have been the biggest hit in gaming history, (gamers have been waiting 10 years for this) so why make such a stupid move? Or are they somehow earning money from people using their servers, or what? I really don't understand this...

Imma let you finish, but Diablo 3 is making ****loads of money. 3.5 million copies were sold within the first 24 hours. That's more than R1400,000,000 in the first day.

Additionally, Diablo 2 fans are old. They don't necessarily represent the biggest potential lucrative market.

[Grimnebulin]

I feel EXACTLY the same, and this is what totally baffles me: Don't they realise how many potential buyers they've lost with their online only DRM? I think think Diablo III would have been the biggest hit in gaming history, (gamers have been waiting 10 years for this) so why make such a stupid move? Or are they somehow earning money from people using their servers, or what? I really don't understand this...

Here's my perspective as someone who only jumped in to the game a week after release, and up until that point was pretty dismissive of Blizzard and how badly the initial release went. Should the game have an offline option? Absolutely. Should we cut Blizzard some slack for not anticipating the demand on their servers on launch day? Not really, no.

But (pause for dramatic effect), does Blizzard's always-on requirement hold value? Most definitely. The ease with which I can interact with friends, whether it be simply tracking their progress through the game, joining them either on a protracted campaign or just for a limited jaunt, the fact that I can play on my work pc and continue on my home pc without worrying about save files; these are all functions we as gamers should be celebrating.

Will Blizzard regret certain decisions? Possibly, though judging by early sales figures, I don't think they'll be wandering the streets in rags and ashes just yet. The decision to take always-on, and squeeze every drop of functionality out of it, was not a stupid one by any stretch. The fact that it happens to also afford them a measure of DRM, well can we truly begrudge them that? I might not agree that it's the best way to combat piracy, but do I actually have any right to tell Cape Town Stadium how it should handle its security? Of course not. They have the right to implement whatever measures they feel are required. I can decide not to go and watch the game because I find their measures too much of an inconvenience, but it's their stadium, not mine.

[Blue-IcE]

I feel EXACTLY the same, and this is what totally baffles me: Don't they realise how many potential buyers they've lost with their online only DRM? I think think Diablo III would have been the biggest hit in gaming history, (gamers have been waiting 10 years for this) so why make such a stupid move? Or are they somehow earning money from people using their servers, or what? I really don't understand this...

Grendel here is an interesting article i found to try answer your question.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertco...r-in-diablo-3/

[Toxxyc]

I feel EXACTLY the same, and this is what totally baffles me: Don't they realise how many potential buyers they've lost with their online only DRM? I think think Diablo III would have been the biggest hit in gaming history, (gamers have been waiting 10 years for this) so why make such a stupid move? Or are they somehow earning money from people using their servers, or what? I really don't understand this...

I have absolutely no issue with an online-only DRM system. I believe it's secure and it's extremely convenient. I do believe an offline option will have to be made available though, as can be seen is preferable to Blizzard setting up so many additional servers just to cope with the record breaking sales they've experienced (Diablo III is officially the fastest selling game of all time with the details Kharrak mentioned above).

No, I do know you're taking my side, so apologies for this - Blizzard is all about making money. 3.5 Million copies were sold on pre-orders and on release day. Another 1.2 million went to WoW users who paid for an Annual Pass Promotion (more money to Blizzard). By the end of the week, Blizzard moved 6.3 million copies of Diablo III (thats 4 days). Most impressive? That's only the PC stats, not consoles included... They're making a crapload of money out of this game, trust me. A CRAPLOAD. Blizzard knows how to make money, and they're doing it right for them. Look at WoW. 8 years old, and still making Blizzard millions of dollars every month. They could have made Diablo III free to play, and still they'd have made a profit from their WoW subscriptions alone (given a bit of time, really).

Now, back to your side - their server issues were seriously disappointing. A buddy invited me to the midnight launch of D3, but I had to work, so I couldn't make it. Trust me, had I paid for the game there and then I'd sit here raging my nuts off about the way Blizzard handled the issues. I'd have freaked out. So, my advice is simple - give D3 a month or two. I don't care about the lack of people to join online, because, well, I don't really enjoy online playing anyhow. Sometimes is fun as hell, like the L4D2/Renegade Ops sessions I had with the guys on these forums, but D3 will be a SP game for me. So, if I have to be online, fine, just make sure I can connect and play. So I'm waiting. Maybe I can even get a price cut on the game, though unlikely. Warcraft 3 still sells for R100+ at most stores, and that baby is almost 10 years old now (about 5 weeks from it's 10-year birthday, actually).

tl;dr - Saying that Blizzard lost sales is incorrect. Saying that they aren't making money is a flaccid statement. Will I play the game? Yes, eventually. Wait for a possible price drop (*wink wink* BT Games), and play when the servers are more readily available.

[Yuri]

Blizzard is all about making money

Every development studio on the planet is infact all about money. Or have I been mislead all this time? Game development is really just charity work?

[Grendel]

Blizzard moved 6.3 million copies of Diablo III (thats 4 days). Most impressive? That's only the PC stats, not consoles included...

HUH?? I don't think it's available on consoles....yet. But there are rumours.....

OK, then I just hope that after their lust for money is satisfied, they'll eventually patch the game with an offline option, and hopefully not when it's ten years old...(sigh)

[echo]

Grendel, dude, it will never happen. Always on-line gaming, as much as you and I abhor it, will become the norm, be it on consoles or PC (Mostly for piracy reasons).

As far as I know it hasn't been cracked yet, and won't be any time soon, so my advice would be to accept and adapt.

[FFchick]

Not many people have internet access or uncapped internet so being online to play a game is just stupid and unfair. Curse the person who thought it was a good idea. Also i'm not sure if consoles are going to stop selling hard copies of games. Wouldn't that effect their sales?

[Kharrak]

Not many people have internet access or uncapped internet so being online to play a game is just stupid and unfair. Curse the person who thought it was a good idea. Also i'm not sure if consoles are going to stop selling hard copies of games. Wouldn't that effect their sales?

This perception only applies locally.

We aren't exactly a big piece of the target market pie.

[FFchick]

This perception only applies locally.

We aren't exactly a big piece of the target market pie.

Very true, but the internet here in SA is trash compared to the states. If they do this they'll be infringing on my rights as a gamer lol =D.

[Grendel]

Also i'm not sure if consoles are going to stop selling hard copies of games. Wouldn't that effect their sales?

Apparently the argument is that it will stop the second hand market, but I think the day this happens, gaming will totally die out in SA. I am one of the lucky ones who can still afford a new X360 game every month, but most of my buddies can only afford second hand games. Just think of the horror...people like BT Games will close down, and there will be no special editions with flashy silver covers, only virtual fluff. You will pay for something, but have nothing to show for it, and a server somewhere overseas will decide when you are allowed to play...(sniff)

[FFchick]

Apparently the argument is that it will stop the second hand market, but I think the day this happens, gaming will totally die out in SA. I am one of the lucky ones who can still afford a new X360 game every month, but most of my buddies can only afford second hand games. Just think of the horror...people like BT Games will close down, and there will be no special editions with flashy silver covers, only virtual fluff. You will pay for something, but have nothing to show for it, and a server somewhere overseas will decide when you are allowed to play...(sniff)

Exactly what I was thinking, not everyone can fork out R500+ on a single title nor do we all have credit cards.