Worried about the direction the AAA industry is taking.
by Kyrah Abattoir · in General Discussion · 09/29/2011 (11:00 pm) · 26 replies
The major players in AAA video games on PC are somewhat worrying me.
Blizzard/Activision
-------------------
Starcraft 2:
They started promoting Battle net 2.0, their own "all in one" social/ranking/matchmaking solution, the game depend on this platform, alternatives are simply impossible.
-Self hosting isn't possible.
-Offline LAN play isn't possible.
-Players are restricted to their own respective world region.
-Playing the single player part of the game require to remain online.
-Mappers are restricted to stock assets, maps are checked for banned words, down to internal variable names.
-Only battle.net validated maps can be played.
-Gaming events without Blizzard's participation are forbidden.
Diablo3 will be out soon, and we already have the following information:
-Battlenet 2.0 mandatory (again)
-All the SC2 restrictions apply.
-Playing in single player demand online connection because the actual intelligence of the game, AI, items, map generation stay under lock and key in Blizzard's datacenter.
-An auction house both for ingame and real money will be central to the game.
UbiSoft
-------
Similar "always online" systems have been deployed on most of the recent ubi soft games, especially the assassin's creed series, some processing are actually delegated to the ubi soft servers.
Electronic arts
---------------
They have recently pushed their own "steam equivalent" on the market: origin. It has pretty much similar functions. Also, Recent EA games (like Battlefield 3) are exclusively available on Origin.
BattleField Bad Company 2:
-Server hosting was a privilege only given to a handful of professional game service providers, it was impossible to host yourself a server, even an unranked one.
BattleField 3:
-EA Origin is mandatory to install, patch and run the game.
-The matchmaking, server browser, and co op game creation are not inside the game but through their website 'battlelog"
-In order to play you have to install a browser plugins, on top of Origin and on top of using battlelog.
-So far there is no word about a self hosted dedicated server or a listen server.
Now what do i see in this...
I see a trend in those big companies, i believe they are trying to definitely yank out of their customer's mind that they "own anything" when they buy a game. They want to take a complete control of the product they are making, to a point where they decide who you play with, how, when and if there is money to be made by a third party, they want a cut. I think those companies want to force on players the concept of "software as service" and that sooner or later, we will see the "one time fee for lifetime license" model disappear.
I actually think it's already the case, when a game company yank the plug on the master server of one of their games, they basically block players from playing the game they are playing. In Tribes 2's case an unofficial master server appeared and it's still played today.
But the sneaky move they are doing is to make the games more and more intricately bound to their server system, entire chunks of those games depend from remote servers only EA/Ubi/Blizzard can control. This means that those games become more and more like dumb terminals.
EA/Ubi/Blizzard put themselves in a position where they keep under locks and keys the game servers (game logic) the master server and friend lists (ability to connect) and your online identity and profile (your advancement in the game).
It means that the day the service for a game isn't profitable enough, or if the sequel they want you to buy got released, they can force you to buy the "updated version" or stop playing.
Am I the only one seeing this?
Blizzard/Activision
-------------------
Starcraft 2:
They started promoting Battle net 2.0, their own "all in one" social/ranking/matchmaking solution, the game depend on this platform, alternatives are simply impossible.
-Self hosting isn't possible.
-Offline LAN play isn't possible.
-Players are restricted to their own respective world region.
-Playing the single player part of the game require to remain online.
-Mappers are restricted to stock assets, maps are checked for banned words, down to internal variable names.
-Only battle.net validated maps can be played.
-Gaming events without Blizzard's participation are forbidden.
Diablo3 will be out soon, and we already have the following information:
-Battlenet 2.0 mandatory (again)
-All the SC2 restrictions apply.
-Playing in single player demand online connection because the actual intelligence of the game, AI, items, map generation stay under lock and key in Blizzard's datacenter.
-An auction house both for ingame and real money will be central to the game.
UbiSoft
-------
Similar "always online" systems have been deployed on most of the recent ubi soft games, especially the assassin's creed series, some processing are actually delegated to the ubi soft servers.
Electronic arts
---------------
They have recently pushed their own "steam equivalent" on the market: origin. It has pretty much similar functions. Also, Recent EA games (like Battlefield 3) are exclusively available on Origin.
BattleField Bad Company 2:
-Server hosting was a privilege only given to a handful of professional game service providers, it was impossible to host yourself a server, even an unranked one.
BattleField 3:
-EA Origin is mandatory to install, patch and run the game.
-The matchmaking, server browser, and co op game creation are not inside the game but through their website 'battlelog"
-In order to play you have to install a browser plugins, on top of Origin and on top of using battlelog.
-So far there is no word about a self hosted dedicated server or a listen server.
Now what do i see in this...
I see a trend in those big companies, i believe they are trying to definitely yank out of their customer's mind that they "own anything" when they buy a game. They want to take a complete control of the product they are making, to a point where they decide who you play with, how, when and if there is money to be made by a third party, they want a cut. I think those companies want to force on players the concept of "software as service" and that sooner or later, we will see the "one time fee for lifetime license" model disappear.
I actually think it's already the case, when a game company yank the plug on the master server of one of their games, they basically block players from playing the game they are playing. In Tribes 2's case an unofficial master server appeared and it's still played today.
But the sneaky move they are doing is to make the games more and more intricately bound to their server system, entire chunks of those games depend from remote servers only EA/Ubi/Blizzard can control. This means that those games become more and more like dumb terminals.
EA/Ubi/Blizzard put themselves in a position where they keep under locks and keys the game servers (game logic) the master server and friend lists (ability to connect) and your online identity and profile (your advancement in the game).
It means that the day the service for a game isn't profitable enough, or if the sequel they want you to buy got released, they can force you to buy the "updated version" or stop playing.
Am I the only one seeing this?
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#22
The fact that I see more smack-talk being based on stats bears that out in a completely-non-scientific sort of way. Of course, there's always going to be someone who, with access to those stats, would use them, but the chatter on stats keeps rising in general. I just hop on and play, and when I'm bored I'm done (much like you and WoW, as you say), but my concern is the same as why MMOs are all DikuMUD clones: After a while, people just think that that's how it's supposed to be, instead of asking why it was done that way in the first place.
10/05/2011 (5:19 am)
@James: I wasn't making a commentary on the griefing/camping in the game (it is annoying sometimes, but when it gets like that I just hit ignore). My point was that the developers are starting to pour resources into displaying stats and such, and while it may not be an absolutely huge deal now, that road leads to losing sight of fun and concentrating on Ding!'s.The fact that I see more smack-talk being based on stats bears that out in a completely-non-scientific sort of way. Of course, there's always going to be someone who, with access to those stats, would use them, but the chatter on stats keeps rising in general. I just hop on and play, and when I'm bored I'm done (much like you and WoW, as you say), but my concern is the same as why MMOs are all DikuMUD clones: After a while, people just think that that's how it's supposed to be, instead of asking why it was done that way in the first place.
#23
10/05/2011 (5:21 am)
"base rape" ... there's some new terminology for me ... 
#24
In Battlefield, at least, the stats are there because they need to be for the unlock system. It was smart to expose them as it gives the user another element of involvement. It's a player's fault, not the developers', for making it the end all be all of their experience.
10/06/2011 (12:59 pm)
Quote:My point was that the developers are starting to pour resources into displaying stats and such, and while it may not be an absolutely huge deal now, that road leads to losing sight of fun and concentrating on Ding!'s.Yeah, that sucks, but I think equal blame rests in the players. Remember when you got the high score in Street Fighter? Did you put your name up or put in AAA? There's always been a way to get your bragging rights, it's just more in-depth now. I play a game to have fun, but every once in a while I'll go check out my stats just to see how many zombies I've killed or how many hot shots I made.
In Battlefield, at least, the stats are there because they need to be for the unlock system. It was smart to expose them as it gives the user another element of involvement. It's a player's fault, not the developers', for making it the end all be all of their experience.
#25
I'm not sure about their next MMO, but Diablo 3's "Auction House" will allow you to buy AND sell in game items for real world cash:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/diablo-iii-to-offer-cash-auctions-cant-be-played-offline/
This raises the bar on requiring very restrictive DRM and online-only gameplay.
10/07/2011 (1:00 pm)
"Blizzard has said already hinted that there next MMO will have "social" components."I'm not sure about their next MMO, but Diablo 3's "Auction House" will allow you to buy AND sell in game items for real world cash:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/diablo-iii-to-offer-cash-auctions-cant-be-played-offline/
This raises the bar on requiring very restrictive DRM and online-only gameplay.
#26
Personally I love mmorpg's where you have to control a team of players, but I rarely ever see it :(.
Also I want an mmorpg where there's more to do than killing and crafting.
10/08/2011 (9:27 pm)
off topic I think, but if that new mmo blizzard is developing is anything like wow I woun't play it. I found wow boring. to me there's only so much grinding I can do before it gets old.Personally I love mmorpg's where you have to control a team of players, but I rarely ever see it :(.
Also I want an mmorpg where there's more to do than killing and crafting.
Torque 3D Owner Tuomas Kaukoranta
This is exactly how Valve pushed Steam in the first place: you had to install Steam to play HL2 (even singleplayer) and CSS. Eventhough I love Steam myself, forcing someone to use a certain platform is never nice, even if Valve does it.