@green_scorpion It's not called gullibility when I'm skeptical. Sheesh. You are right they don't *need* to compute it on their servers, but we don't know how exactly it is being computed... Does it take a super computer? I don't know!
Well, I like the idea, but don't call it DRM if there isn't any. Just say, "without an internet connection, you can't play" and bill it as an online multiplayer game. And if it isn't multiplayer, then say it is an online single player game. We can call this an "OSP Game".
Again, I like the idea of using the servers for computational power. But I'm surprised a local computer can't do this. I'm also surprised why this has to be done at all. All other SimCity games never required this... I'll have to see it in action.
It may be Bethesda's problem, but don't give them such a hard time! Would you rather they release a broken DLC than to to hold it off (even indefinitely)? If they knew they couldn't release on the PS3 then they most likely shouldn't. There's no universal law that states they had to release DLC for the PlayStation or even their game.
They took a gamble and now PS3 owners are frustrated. I feel sorry for the PS3 owners to go through with that, Bethesda shouldn't have put it on PS3, but in all honesty they were trying to be kind. They didn't want to block out a very detailed game to the PS market, yet at the same time they knew they should of had a stable game. It's really a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
@FandomTheory The idea is, they were supposed to be making those launch titles 2-3 years ago.
But the economy had been in decline. I think its understandable there has been 7 years in this current cycle. We didn't have the market for a new-console-every-4-years plan. Also some games like Skyrim took 4 years to make, and so would have been considered an old generation game by now if a new console were to be released. Furthermore, there would have been far less games. I think 7 years is good, but computer systems have indeed gotten better. So I think its fitting that finally new consoles are in the works.
What I hope is that these new consoles are not 12-year systems but remain around the 7 year mark. What I really hope is a console system that can be upgraded... like computers but much easier (anybody remember the graphics plugin for the N64?).
@stan_boyd Do you share that sentiment with several million others? If so, they would possibly think of changing... But they won't because their style is locked down. A games style isn't locked down because a game is inherently software and software is inherently in a constant state of flux. Ergo, ME: 3, and Doom 3 could change; it's not so simple for Metallica to just change (since they have to force themselves to like the change).
@crazymann888 What? A composer and a philosopher? I'm talking about games (namely software) being in constant flux. Not if comparisons can or can't be made between mediums.
Games have the ability to look at their source code and change it at will. Movies and books can't do that. Video Games are in the realm of Software Engineering, and are thusly under a different paradigm umbrella than movies and books.
Software can be easily rewritten and redistributed as patches, and even write its own software. Compilers do that, write software from the commands you feed them.
A company is a compiler of art and story in order to produce a game. Given perturbations from society, of course they would change their minds. It wasn't that they were wrong or artistically irrelevant in their original choices. No, its not that at all. It's because EVERYTHING in software is in a constant flux. Nothing is solid or permanent.
We even saw that with a Mass Effect novel, in which case fan criticism changed it. Fans are right, or why fans? <-- don't answer; just think it has more than one viewpoint answer so it's more of a rhetoric question.
Truth is, the industry will only change when there's no more money to be made in violent games.
Truth of the matter is, violent games DO sell (if the latest COD is any indication). A developer can talk all he wants about "audiences", but at the end of the day the audience with the most money in their pocket and a willingness to spend it is the party publishers* will be aiming for, for a long time to come.
However, that doesn't mean one shouldn't develop for the largest audience. But it also should not mean any technological progress is halted because of that. If there's money to be made in technology, I'd say its pursue-able.
I am a banana. Don't mock me! Bananas have strong feelings for who they are. Respect difference in people!!! Just because I'm male on the outside.... oh forget it. That's how I view trans-anything. Just because you can, and say you can by reinforcing a wall of equality, differences and or fairness doesn't mean its right. I could be a Banana, but I'd get ridiculed. I could then start a group of people, gain media attention, star in a video game, and then Trans-Bananas would become - what? Acceptable members of the community? The satire was to show that it's psychologically damming to call yourself something and then grow up believing you are that way. And then if there's any modicum amount of support for it, it just becomes an enabler for the behavior. When the human brain convinces you to be a certain way it's a very powerful thought - very. powerful. - and then you will try to spend the rest of your life defending that thought. It's a sad way to be, because I think there's a deeper traumatic reason as to why people change things like their gender.
Radnen's comments