Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Great Big E3 ThreadFollow

#402 Jun 13 2013 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,411 posts
The Emperor is chosen based on PVP. Exactly how I don't think was mentioned, but I would assume it's based on rankings/standings and possibly a vote. I believed they mentioned the Emperor would be limited in what they could do, but it would be more than just a title.
#403 Jun 13 2013 at 7:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The part of PVP making it "crap" for me is that the ES series was one where you could experiment with different builds and all were viable for letting you "win" the game in your own way. Someone could play an all stealth bow sniper, I could play pure mage, someone else could go sword & board. We could all complete quests and finish the main plot. This encouragement to shape your character in your own way without real penalty was part of the core open world experience.

PVP means optimal builds, min/maxxing, turning people down because "All melee sucks, dude" and the rest of it. It goes directly against one of the series' key components.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#404 Jun 13 2013 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Emperor Elinda. Get used to it.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#405 Jun 13 2013 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
Elinda wrote:
Emperor Elinda. Get used to it.

Will there be sweet rolls?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#406 Jun 13 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll just drop this here since it's tangentially E3 related:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-every-game-company-gets-wrong-about-gamers/
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#407 Jun 13 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,903 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll just drop this here since it's tangentially E3 related:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-every-game-company-gets-wrong-about-gamers/


Man I love cracked.com. "I told you, it's paused here because the article is about sexism" Smiley: lol
#408 Jun 13 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
10,403 posts
KTurner wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I'll just drop this here since it's tangentially E3 related:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-every-game-company-gets-wrong-about-gamers/


Man I love cracked.com. "I told you, it's paused here because the article is about sexism" Smiley: lol

I want a baby penguin now.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#409 Jun 18 2013 at 4:59 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,030 posts
I wonder if Sony will wave the PS+ requirement for online play for FFXIV? Microsoft allowed non-Gold members to play FFXI on the 360 (or some agreement between Square Enix and MS allowed it).

Edit:
This article here:
http://operationrainfall.com/e3-2013-playstation-plus-for-some-mmorpg/

Doesn't sound too hopeful. I guess we'll see.

Edited, Jun 18th 2013 7:05pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#410 Jun 18 2013 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,349 posts
I don't really take that to mean anything specific to those games. That, to me, sounds like "I'm going to state the party line because it's not up to me what publishers choose."

Mostly because of the context. That was a question specifically about MMO games, and his response was that online multiplayer requires Plus unless a publisher chooses otherwise.

He's saying that it's up to the publisher who fronts the bill for those services. They can either work with Sony, who will get a cut, or require their players cough up themselves. Given that they're putting a big investment into the PS4, though, I would be shocked if many companies let their MMOs fall behind pay walls. I can't imagine it would be a huge price (afterall, Sony stands to win by getting more people gaming on the machine, regardless). But a purely MMO title is going to put a lot of stress on their systems, a la CoD, and they need to finance that infrastructure.

I can't imagine that there isn't already a decisive answer to this question. Yoshida is just taking the smart route and not giving an answer to a question that's contingent on decisions made outside of his corporation (as it's really up to them to announce them, and they have the option to decide). The two he named are already on the PS3, so I imagine their contract is more-or-less unchanged.

If they WON'T be behind paywalls, as of now, then Yoshida definitely doesn't want to have to eat his words if they change their minds later. He also doesn't want to be seen as establishing a precedent.

If they WILL be behind paywalls, as of now, then Yoshida definitely doesn't want to have publishers pissed at him for announcing that without approval, and damaging the hype for their games, and doesn't want to damage the hype for the PS4.

I doubt Sony has a preference, in general. It's going to come down to how the populations for the individual games work, and they'll likely review it case-by-case to see how much they can justify charging a publisher. If the majority of a gaming population already has plus, they'll likely up the charge to the publisher. That way, the publisher says no, and they get more plus subs, or they say yes and they charge more.

If most of them don't have plus, it behooves the publisher to agree to pay for multiplayer, which gives Sony a more reliable revenue stream than plus would have been. In this case, Sony probably would have lost money - the chances of such a significant group going for plus, if they didn't already have it, is slim.

One last thing: It's worth noting that publishers can do other things to make Plus a better investment. Maybe they negotiate to only pay for players without Plus. Well, if they add Plus incentives in-game, Sony wins by getting more subs, the publisher wins by not paying for the multiplayer, and the player wins by getting something in return.

So, at the end of the day, I wouldn't take this to be good or bad. Because it just sounds to me like a smart businessman making the smart business move and shutting his mouth on issues that are undecided, out of his control, or otherwise. All this says is that Sony doesn't have a MMO-specific policy in place that completely removes the Plus barrier. For all we know, a pure-multiplayer game will have heavily reduced demands on publishers compared to something like Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect, where multiplayer is a fun side-activity.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#411 Jun 19 2013 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
SE refused to port XIV to Xbox because they were being hardline dicks about making people pay for online (unlike with XI) so I would bet that allowing XIV players through the paywall is a condition of porting to the PS4

Edited, Jun 19th 2013 8:29pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 99 All times are in CDT
panditkashiramji, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (97)