If they live in a rural area without internet, they wouldn't be following him on twitter in the first place. So, he just making fun of people who can't even see they are being made fun of. No harm done.
The ESRB is completely voluntary but your game will never be sold without a rating, or an AO (Adult Only) rating.
Oh come on people. I was making a joke about the rural area people not being able to see the tweets...
I'm probably stirring the pot a little bit but I think it's funny how people talk about gaming like it's a right or something. I'm not indifferent to concerns about mandating internet connectivity, but at the end of the day wouldn't it just be simpler to walk away from gaming when it becomes too much of a burden technologically?
Like it or not the internet has become to gaming what the television is to CBS. The future of gaming means complete integration with the internet and people who don't have access to broadband are simply going to be left out in the cold. Maybe not today, but 5-10 years from now its virtually guaranteed. This isn't much different from my friend who can't get cable because he lives out in the country. There is an opportunity cost to living in places that don't have decent internet access. Not gaming just might be the price to be paid in the case.
I personally don't like it, but I'm not naive thinking that if I bang my fists hard enough they will avoid doing it. There are too many financial perks to being able to monitor gaming activities and pushing advertising to gamers in real time. Game consoles are no longer single purpose devices. They are media distribution devices and developers/publishers rely on connectivity to coax you into buying things, whether it be games, movies, music, or whatever. To do that, they need you plugged in.
Until the next gen consoles ship I'm certain the PR machine will downplay DRM requirements for future games but I'd put money down that once enough consoles are released they will transition into full activation.
People bulked at Steam when it first came out. The idea that games required activation through them was repugnant to many people at first but over time it simply became the norm. It's hard for some PC gamers to admit but PC gaming was at a low point and Steam was one of the big reasons why it came back so strong.
MS and Sony want XBL and PSN respectively to become the console equivilant to Steam and that won't happen until developers/publishers start requiring gamers to flow through it. The downside is internet requirements, but the upside are games that never go out of print and the potential for discounts that no storefront would ever agree to.
Ultimately my point is that no amount of debating will change it. In 3-5 years console gaming will be where PC gaming is today in regards to game activation and connectivity. It won't matter whether people refuse to purchase consoles or not, or whether 30% of gamers can't play because they are on crappy connections. The internet is the future.
As was essentially stated above, that argument basically goes right out the window when you realize that there is a direct competitor with a very similar, perhaps even superior, product that does not have the same requirement.
You can tell people "Oh, well, that's just the wave of the future. Get used to it", and it probably is. But it isn't right now. And if your direct competition can offer up something that competes with you in every other way, without your self-imposed obstacles, you are likely going to suffer in the marketplace.
Which competitor is that? I don't believe for a second that MS and Sony are going to tell any developer that they can't require connectivity or activation for games. It's PR doublespeak. I'm not saying that an persistant internet connection will be required, but game activation via code? We shall see.
As was essentially stated above, that argument basically goes right out the window when you realize that there is a direct competitor with a very similar, perhaps even superior, product that does not have the same requirement.
You can tell people "Oh, well, that's just the wave of the future. Get used to it", and it probably is. But it isn't right now. And if your direct competition can offer up something that competes with you in every other way, without your self-imposed obstacles, you are likely going to suffer in the marketplace.
I wouldn't just give Sony the crown before we actually hear anything from MS.
If Sony launches before Microsoft, Sony wins.
The only reason Xbox 360 was so successful was because it launched before the PS3, if they both launched at the same time PS3 would have been second place in this generation too.
That wasn't the only reason, cost of the PS3 was another large reason as well.
If Sony launches before Microsoft, Sony wins.
The only reason Xbox 360 was so successful was because it launched before the PS3, if they both launched at the same time PS3 would have been second place in this generation too.
Definitely not the only reason. PS3 came out expensive as hell.
Definitely not the only reason. PS3 came out expensive as hell.
So Xbox720 will be like Diablo 3. Nobody can play 20 hours during "server maintenance."
But are you still going to come here and complain about modern games? If not, then you aren't truly following him.Every report I see about these new systems just makes me realize it is time for me to join exdeath in the classic games only category. I will forego both new consoles thanks to their blatant greed and disregard for the gaming community.
But are you still going to come here and complain about modern games? If not, then you aren't truly following him.
Not to mention, it isn't just classic games he loves. He hates every game that sold well. So, you have to only like obscure games from 3+ gens ago that nobody ever heard of.