http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in … 10207.html

"Digital Rights Management schemes are already causing outcry among gamers, but it's only going to get uglier. One developer we spoke with said if there's no backlash to the amount of DRM in next-gen consoles, they'll be shocked. If you thought publishers locked things down today, just wait."

While I have no problem with DRM that checks to see if you're using an authentic disk, I will avoid games that require you to register/play online.  Avoid, like the plague...

"Gaming is increasingly moving to a multiplayer world. It allows titles to stay on sales charts long after their release and ultimately makes the publisher more money. This will put a squeeze on single player experiences, unfortunately. The upside is multiplayer doesn't have to be obtrusive. Journey's use of other players wandering into your game (without having to deal with griefing or pre-adolescent rants) could be a beacon for the future of single play."

Since I only play single-player games, I guess I won't be playing much. Overall, I'm really not liking the future outlook. Perhaps, it's time to dust off that Genesis and pop-in Pier Solar...

with regards to multiplayer, like in Journey, if you have other real life players filling in for NPCs (excuse me, yes, you there, how do I get to [...] location?) that would be ingenius, as opposed to the tripe that scriptwriters give most NPCs to say.

otherwise, not looking forward to online-only play. sometimes I travel out to remote places, but still like to bring my video games with me, but there's no internet out there.

not too excited about next gen consoles (not too excited about this current gen, honestly) but I'll at least take a look and give em a chance.

Youthful gamers (especially those not born yet) have an advantage over us oldies, since they have or will have no memories of what gaming was like before DRM and online multiplayer. Imagine a gamer that has their very first gaming experience with a Playstation 4 and then imagine their life 30 years from that point. Let's say the year is 2045. The gamer would reminiscence about the simpler days of DRM and online multiplayer and complain about the new game systems that require bionic eye implants. (Everything will be cloud based and all interfacing will be done with implants. No wires, no visible technology. The same eye implant could detect hand movement for controlling characters "on screen". Or GPS transmitters could be grown into the protein that makes our fingernails - keratin.)

The single vs multiplayer thing is nothing new. 10 years ago, I would buy an RPG, play through it and be done with it (occasionally revisiting my save file), while I would buy a fighting game and play it at tournaments and with people for over a year. Same story nowadays. I can't think of too many primarily single player games over the last couple years I've played to death (Klonoa 2, maybe? Suikoden V and Growlanser II, for their multiple endings).

I count myself in the doomsayer camp...I think developers have struggled enough with this generation, going to the next one is going to be super tough for a lot of developers. You're going to see even fewer chances being taken, an eternity to come to grips with the new hardware, higher prices (probably $65-$70...Wii U games will be $60). Consoles are going to have a tough road ahead. Microsoft is probably in the best overall position, considering Xbox is a fairly small venture for them, but game consoles are a huge part of Sony and Nintendo's bottom line, so they will feel it worst if their systems don't deliver.

And wow...spellcheck flags "Playstation" as an incorrect spelling, but not "Xbox" or "Wii".

A trend toward multiplayer gaming would be fantastic to me - if the multiplayer wasn't always online! Nintendo seem to be the only ones creating games for people who have real live friends together in the same room these days

I always figured that developers would eventually figure out how to make video games run on the human brain itself. screw virtual reality. games would be like vivid, lucid waking dreams. no more need to spend so much time rendering realistic graphics, when you could get your own brain to do it for you. you could focus purely on content, substance, scenarios, script, plot, etc., and let the brain make of it what it will. they say that humans only use about 10% what the human brain is really capable of. imagine if we tapped into that unused potential? in the future, video games might even help people evolve intellectually in a very empirical sense by engaging and exercising their brain directly.

Always on DRM is awful, and extremely unfriendly to consumers. In a surprisingly twist, Ubisoft (one of the worst offenders) recently announced that it is abandoning it. They didn't really say why, but the reasons are obvious: it costs them money to implement, it punishes loyal customers, and it has no effect on piracy. Hopefully other publishers will follow suit and find ways to use online connections to add value (see Steam) rather than to simply to penalize people.

As for the trend towards multiplayer, that's just part of the whole "software as a service" movement. It's a great way of getting the more casual gamer who only buys Madden or Call of Duty to spend a lot more money on those games. Since they aren't going to buy anything else anyway, this is a way to extract more value from them.

As for single-player games, there will always be single-player games as long as someone is willing to pay for them. They might shift to more indie style downloadable games and be less like AAA big budget games, but considering the overly mainstream direction that AAA games have taken, I'm A-OK with that.

The 10% that humans use is in reference to a given moment. We use 100% of the brain, but not 100% of the time. It would be a strange experience if each input caused all areas of the brain to simultaneously operate.

maybe the shift will be from DRM to free-to-play?  they won't need drm if the free version is very crippled and you need to pay up to actually do anything.

and then you find yourself eating someones face on the side of a highway...

I think the biggest difference newer systems will make over previous generations is that they'll be that complex that emulation, homebrew and region un-locking will take ages, if coming at all. Possibly no issue to the majority of the people, but to people interested in game preservation this is no rosy outlook at all.

That will still need some form of DRM for the pay-stuff.

Ive always been a fan of what I like to call "open basket" (as in, a basket you toss money into, like for a musician performing on the street)

the developer releases their software for free, if you like it, want to support it (or want it supported, say, with patches/fixes) see a sequel, etc., than you donate $$$.

a person may not be able to pay $60 for a game. not being able to afford it means they cant buy it at all, and the developer, publisher, etc., dont get any $$$ at all. but if you're able to choose your price, at least they get some money.

If consumers are able to choose their own price, companies will never make their money back. There's a reason only homeless people and starving artists turn to the "open basket" model; they have nothing to lose. No one else can afford to work (and/or sink their own money into a project) and hope consumers will pay on the honor system.

Yeah, name your own price is great if you're trying to make a name for yourself in the business, but not good if your company has shareholders or is dishing out huge money for a license, development costs and advertising.

works for small, independent developers, who only developp games in their freeetime at least. but I see yur point.

It would be great to be able to donate to anyone and everyone without any issue. As is it's both a hassle to get to know who's actually responsible for something and how to donate to him/her then.

(I couldn't care less about the impersonal construct that is "companies", they are worthless as soon as staff changes.)

I feel calling bullshit on this one, especially when pay what your want stuff like indie music/game bundles seem to get someone large payments, and averages around 5-10 dollars. And I really would like to see big company try to release game with Pay What You Want. Perhaps not the latest AAA-title, but test with last year's big title for some time. Wouldn't surprise me if the sales would be good after all.

Also, I wonder how much homeless or starving Jake Kaufman (virt) is, offering his soundtracks for free on Bandcamp.

And I doubt that gaming industry is doomed, especially if you look at the indie side. Sure, the big honchos like EA etc. could take a few lessons from indie stuff, but then players themselves should look into the mirror. Especially if they just keep buying the newest Call of Modern pewpewpew warfare for 60-70 bucks.

About always online DRM, I rather take that than suffer from StarForce 'rootkit'-like DRM's. Sure always online DRM has some slight issues, like the chance of living on place where internet is shitty, or just absurdly expensive. Or just not plain avaible. And I understand why there must be DRM, thanks to assholes who can't even throw 10-30 bucks for game on sale. Or save some money for the game. I really do hate the "it's on internet, it must be freeeeeEEEee"-attitude I hear time to time.

Only thing I worry about games being released partly, like FF IV After Years.

I'll concede that PWYW could work for yesterday's news games, and works for small-scale productions (wherein the game creator's investment is certainly much smaller and thus much more feasible to recoup)--but I don't see it becoming an industry standard, certainly not for major publishers. We already name our own price, so to speak, when companies set the $50-60 price tags and we say "okay" buy buying them.

As for virt, unless he was never compensated by the companies he composed soundtracks for, that doesn't quite fit the mold.

How about wanting to play when the net is down? Or you're on a plane or in a car?

My two cents? This whole idea is batshit ridiculous. There should only be one requirement to play video games: electricity. So you have your TV, you have your console, you have your game... wait, what's missing? Oh yeah, POWER. Forcing people to be online just to play a game is plain stupid, and I hope that every developer that makes that mandatory fails miserably and has to close their doors because people won't support their bullshit. Online options? Great. Online only multiplayer? I can understand that. But that's where I draw the line.

This seems very possible, but very hard to do at the same time, but I feel like it would have to be a mix of brain chemistry, electronics, and psychedelic drugs, so even if it's possible, it may never go commercial...;) haha

I dont see why it wouldnt be possible; scientists in the field are able to actually plant false, fabricated memories into people's minds.

come to think of it, the more obtrusive DRM becomes, the more people are going to figure out ways around it. Im actually not too worried about it at all. people like us all know someone w/ mad hacking skillz, right? I imagine ppl will be loud and advertent, but still anonymous, about circumventing DRM until publishers decide to reconsider their policies.

How rarely your net is down? For my ISP, I think I can count the times that my net has been down with one hand. And playing on planes/cars is something I wouldn't even do, if I go out of my place I rarely play games with my laptop, I rather watch tv series or read a book.

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean others won't. While it's on potables (3DS/PSP) I play games 'on the road' all the time. I can easily see myself doing so with a laptop too.

As for net being down? Yes it's not that common. But it being down at least for me certainly would increase my want to play a game in general to have something to do.

Especially this gen, I've found myself drifting away from gaming and doing more reading, watching television and movies. There have been some great games in the last few years, no doubt... but aside from a select few, none that really blew me away like the previous generations. And as games keep getting more homogenized as development costs go up (and other costs go on), that'll just convince me to stick with my backlog... and play the many games that I missed.