Innovation for innovation's sake is silly. What we need is for the consoles to have some overhead for experimentation to happen, but that's not how that side of gaming works, so.. if you want innovation, you have got to stick with PC.
Freyar
freyar
If I could trust them, I would consider doing business with them. It's isn't just the Xbox One PR that's caused my decision, it's how they treated the Xbox 360 and it's dashboard as well as their post-release policies on that platform that's turned me off to Microsoft.
Sorry, but having seen what they've put together I don't see the quality bar being anywhere it should be. Mechanics wise the game is a mess.
I see no claim for seamless transitions, especially since the discussion presented by Leslie Benzies suggests it's a completely different application even if it's using the same assets.
The difference here is that all those have the multiplayer and social aspects tied in to the game itself. With it being a separate entity, not only is it easier to shut down, it's easier to separate the successes.
One has better lawyers.
It's not just PC, even Xbox Live fails to have enough players for any structured content.
MGO was more than just deathmatch as well, with persistence and whatnot. It died a slow an painful death. (I remember waiting two or more hours for a match..) They're being set up the same way, and I don't have confidence it will last as it's own product.
Looking at it from a business point of view. Sure GTA Online can be fun, but if it becomes a liability, do you really think Rockstar will keep it online? Having it as a separate entity only strengthens the risk each component has on it's own, meaning that financially it's easier to sever one or the other.
Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer is not a separately built application like Metal Gear Online. It was shipped with a core multiplayer component and lacked the more significant social and persistence data that GTAO is looking like it will have.
Out of curiosity, I took a look to see the likelihood of getting into a game for anything BUT Free-Roam (IE: Structured Activities). I found one match for Hangman's NOOSE and that was it. No racing, no standard deathmatch, not enough players were interested to actually start anything.
It still reflects poorly on the industry as a whole though. Cheating and whatnot wasn't that uncommon in GTA IV (especially on PC since there was zero client security), and the fact that it's a significant financial investment for something like this means that it's a bet that isn't going to work out.
Multiple replies to multiple people. If this were a traditional forum system it wouldn't look as stupid because then I could quote it in-line rather than having other portions of the conversations hidden and have things (like what you are responding about) taken out of context.
That was something I didn't even realize when I raised my concerns to begin with. GTA V / GTAO is launching prior to a big console release. How will that sustain? I seriously doubt it will, which only throws another strike at the potential financial incentive to support GTA Online in the long term.
How many people actually play anything but free-roam in GTA IV? Can't find a race, can't find any structured content at all.
Say? No. Based on industry behavior, it's likely.
I'll give you that there is a difference between Western and Eastern developers and publishers, but I seriously don't think the model works in this respect. You have a high-value AAA singleplayer game being pushed out the door, and the multiplayer portion is being shipped as it's own service.
I'll believe it when I see it. Of course they'll SAY they'll continue to develop content for it, but if they can't monetize it enough they'll drop it hard.
I'll believe it when I see it. Rockstar isn't that great for multiplayer support.