Wii U Questions

[Mendon]

 

 

Horrible analogy imo... does not compare apples to apples in the slightest. I take it you believe in Probable Cause being warranted in a pre-emptive fashion across all facets of life....? Or just where the argument suits you?

 

I wasn't arguing, just putting forth a thought.

 

Here's another thought.... you aren't making many friends here, are ya?

 

 

Mendon

[godslabrat]

Now, onto your argument:

 

I might? I believe I do. Yeah, it was called owning Physical Media. You have basically made my argument. Do me a favor and name me another game besides Starcraft II or Diablo III (MMOs do not count) that require the user to Prove they purchased the software legitimately prior to each and every play session (Single Player sessions is what we're talking about).

 

The requirement to be online to verify installation (once and only once) - is as 'far' as you'll get with regard to your logic that the Devs and Pubs of today have a right to verify that we've legitimately purchased their software. Asking the user to perform this verification for each Single Player session is not only damaging to their potential Customer base (I've yet to buy Blizzards last two games for example), but also extremely insulting to me as a Gamer for a number of reasons of which I've already listed in this thread = ultimately the latter example imho, is unacceptable on any front unless it's an MMO I suppose... but for Single Player gaming, not a chance in hell today, and not chance in hell 20 years from now.

 

You have laid out your argument in a clear and concise manner and for that I applaud you. The other two were having technical difficulties when they peeked in the thread, thanks for saying for them what they were apparently unable to type.

 

Bottom line: some believe that being asked to prove ownership of software for Single Player games, repeatedly for each Gameplay session - is ok... while others do not. I am in the latter camp. You are apparently in the former camp.

 

I am a huge fan of physical media, and I find the "download only" model to be extremely shortsighted. You won't find any argument from me there. However, that's not really what triggered these comments. Your overall argument of

"put forth a sensible argument as to why and how a "guilty until proven innocent" Gaming Scheme benefits Gamers, and the Industry at large"

 

...is what really started all this. And why? Because it's an overly-generalized idea that's not at all adequate to deal with nuanced issues like piracy, online cheating, content protection, etc. As I showed before, user verification has always been seen as a necessary measure in software distribution, and in one form or another it has always revolved around the "guilty until proven innocent" idea. So the problem clearly isn't with the concept of having users prove their legitimacy, the problem lies with the methods.

 

Some companies have switched to non-physical media. You don't like that, neither do I, neither do a lot of people There's also DRM-enabled downloads... that's a whole other can of worms. Online passes. Software licenses. Dongles. User keys. Shareware. Nonstandard media. ALL of these things could be used to verify users, prevent piracy, and control content. Some offer the end user more control over the media than others, but all ultimately expect the user to verify their purchase. Yes, I know that some games expect the user to authenticate themselves online with every play. I'm not focusing on that, because even if it's invasive, IT'S NOTHING NEW, just a new twist on a very old concept. I won't buy those games, the idea of needing an internet connection turns me off, but the idea of needing to prove legitimacy didn't start there. If you think that's "too much", cool, I agree, and we probably agree that a lot of these methods are "too much".

 

But again, to wrap this up, you're making the wrong argument if you're saying that users shouldn't be "guilty until proven innocent." Not only is that very poor (and frankly, kinda silly) wording, but it ignores the entire precedent leading up to where we are now.

[Metal Ghost]

Metal Ghost... back to your original post:

 

Speaking for myself, I have very little interest in the Wii-U at this time. I'm having so much fun with the Wii and Xbox360 (especially picking up some fun games for $10 or less) that I just don't see a need for spending $$$$$ on a new system.

 

And there are so many unanswered questions regarding the new system.... launch date and price, storage, transfer of DLC from Wii, online aspects, and on and on. Nintendo is being too quiet in too many area's, IMO.

 

Plus, after watching the launch of the 3DS, I plan on waiting for at least a year or more in order to see what final price and design the Wii-U will take before I even consider the possibility of a purchase. That time frame will also allow me to see what software is produced by 3rd parties and what direction Sony and MS might take with a new system.

 

 

Mendon

 

Yea, realistically I will not be purchasing the Wii U upon launch. Much more likely, I'll wait until the next Xbox drops and then purchase my Nintendo down the road (similar to when I purchased my Gamecube quite far into the last generation). That buys me at least an extra year of working through my growing backlog of games before entering the next generation. My brain realizes that I'm just getting a bit antsy to try something new (I'm definitely a gadget guy!) and without having heard anything about the next Xbox, I kind of just started latching onto Wii U news.

 

Now that having been said, and on the other hand, my girls have been having a blast watching me play through Super Mario Sunshine just this month and Twilight Princess last year (I'll have to replay Wind Waker next now that my oldest is of the age where she'll actually remember it). I decided early on that I was sitting the Wii out for various reasons. So now with the Wii U, assuming full Wii compatability, I may be willing to get a Nintendo machine earlier in it's life cycle, finally take advantage of some Wii titles that'd it be nice to play, and wait some time out until the next Xbox drops.

 

Gosh, I'm talking myself in circles!

[xg4bx]

nintendo pretty much cemented my purchasing of a wii u with the backwards compatibility of both games and controllers. it'll be sweet bringing it home and being completely ready to go without having to drop $60 on another controller.

Edited August 19, 2012 by xg4bx

[Metal Ghost]

nintendo pretty much cemented my purchasing of a wii u with the backwards compatibility of both games and controllers. it'll be sweet bringing it home and being completely ready to go without having to drop $60 on another controller.

 

Yea, that's definitely a stand-up decision on their part. I'm hoping that now since all the consoles have wireless controllers that this is typical across the board.

[Hydro Thunder]

So I'm not sold on the Wii U as of yet...

For some of you that are, what's your main reasoning? As in, what are you most looking forward to playing on it / doing with it that is exciting?

I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what the draw is. Kinda still in love with the Wii, personally.

[godslabrat]

So I'm not sold on the Wii U as of yet...

For some of you that are, what's your main reasoning?

 

...

 

Kinda still in love with the Wii, personally.

 

There ya go. If you're liking the Wii, the Wii U is going to be more of the same. Hopefully, maybe even a little better. If you're not liking the Wii now, well, the Wii U is still likely to be more of the same, so dust off those old "Gamecube 1.5" jokes!

[xg4bx]

So I'm not sold on the Wii U as of yet...

For some of you that are, what's your main reasoning?

 

...

 

Kinda still in love with the Wii, personally.

 

There ya go. If you're liking the Wii, the Wii U is going to be more of the same. Hopefully, maybe even a little better. If you're not liking the Wii now, well, the Wii U is still likely to be more of the same, so dust off those old "Gamecube 1.5" jokes!

 

pretty much. i've been absolutely loving the wii and i'd like to see what the new controller can bring to the table. plus, like i mentioned, being able to use all my current controllers and games is a massive plus. the graphics boost doesn't hurt either-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9DaepJ_fk&list=LLm5L-Y4E67-j53k7h5MW6tg&feature=mh_lolz

 

 

Edited August 20, 2012 by xg4bx

[Metal Ghost]

I'd seen the Zombie:U trailer before, but this was the first I'd seen the Lego City: Undercover trailer. What a fun looking game! Since our Lego Batman-Indiana Jones-Star Wars games are some of the most popular in our house with my girls, that's of HIGH interest for me. Now that having been said, I didn't really see anything that they showed that you couldn't do without the Gamepad using on-screen tools, etc. So my own personal opinion: expect to see this with basically the same features across all platforms. *Sigh*....I'm sure I'll be torn on the U for a while. I see myself getting one, I think the question is when. Given my backlog of games, that question may get made for me!

[Protoplasym]

Some companies have switched to non-physical media. You don't like that, neither do I, neither do a lot of people There's also DRM-enabled downloads... that's a whole other can of worms. Online passes. Software licenses. Dongles. User keys. Shareware. Nonstandard media. ALL of these things could be used to verify users, prevent piracy, and control content. Some offer the end user more control over the media than others, but all ultimately expect the user to verify their purchase. Yes, I know that some games expect the user to authenticate themselves online with every play. I'm not focusing on that, because even if it's invasive, IT'S NOTHING NEW, just a new twist on a very old concept. I won't buy those games, the idea of needing an internet connection turns me off, but the idea of needing to prove legitimacy didn't start there. If you think that's "too much", cool, I agree, and we probably agree that a lot of these methods are "too much".

 

But again, to wrap this up, you're making the wrong argument if you're saying that users shouldn't be "guilty until proven innocent." Not only is that very poor (and frankly, kinda silly) wording, but it ignores the entire precedent leading up to where we are now.

 

Please give me 'one' example of another Single Player game that requires the user to be online 100% of the time, to play the Single Player aspect of the game... considering you don't think it's anything new, then please tell me another game that does what Starcraft II and Diablo III do. I'm all ears.

 

To my knowledge, they are the first PC games that are asking users to be online 100% of the time for the Single Player aspect.

 

Where did I say that? I'm of the mind that a purchase of physical media well enough constitutes "proof of purchase", and that should suffice. That, or start putting physical keys in with the physical box (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe anyone? Remember that Code Wheel.... worked out just fine for me), or simply require the disc be in drive. That, or quit making video games, because if the model is, "you have to prove to us every time to play your single player game that you actually purchased the game legitimately, then guess what... I'll simply play what I have and won't support Companies with that mindset"

[Metal Ghost]

Yay!!!! A quick count showed 7 on-topic posts before getting back to this!!! In any case, Ubisoft has used an always-on DRM system for games, for both multi and single player. Not saying I agree with it. But it's there....the following was posted in relation to a February 2012 server migration on Ubi's end:

 

Several of Ubisoft's biggest titles won't be playable as of next week thanks to a server move by the publisher and the restrictive DRM that was used in their development. This isn't just multiplayer either. Because Ubisoft thought it would be a smart plan to use always on DRM for even the single player portion of games like Assassin's Creed, even the single player portion of that title won't be playable during the server move. Some of the other games affected by this move will be Tom Clancy's HAWX 2, Might & Magic: Heroes 6 and The Settlers 7. The Mac games that will be broken during this period are Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell Conviction and The Settlers. This move was announced this week as part of a community letter, with Ubisoft describing how the data servers for many of the publisher's online services would be migrated from third party facilities to a new location starting on the 7th February. The publisher didn't reveal how long the transfer would take."

[godslabrat]

Please give me 'one' example of another Single Player game that requires the user to be online 100% of the time, to play the Single Player aspect of the game... considering you don't think it's anything new, then please tell me another game that does what Starcraft II and Diablo III do. I'm all ears.

 

It's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. What I had stated was that user verification has been going on a very long time, and it had always (in some way or another) expected the user to prove his/her purchase prior to use of the software. Demanding the user be online, even for a single player game, is just the latest iteration of this very old idea. Again, the point you made, which generated so many conflicting responses, was that you wanted proof that a 'guilty until proven innocent' system could benefit the industry or gamers. My point was that the industry had always worked under the idea that users should be verified, the only areas which have changed are the methods. I understand, and even agree, that some of the current methods are unacceptable, but that doesn't change the fact that user verification has been important to the industry's growth over the past four decades.

 

Where did I say that? I'm of the mind that a purchase of physical media well enough constitutes "proof of purchase", and that should suffice. That, or start putting physical keys in with the physical box (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe anyone? Remember that Code Wheel.... worked out just fine for me), or simply require the disc be in drive. That, or quit making video games, because if the model is, "you have to prove to us every time to play your single player game that you actually purchased the game legitimately, then guess what... I'll simply play what I have and won't support Companies with that mindset"

 

Where did you say what?

 

Anyway, I agree that a physical media should constitute proof of purchase, but it doesn't. Publishers have spent a great deal of effort setting up their support boundaries on this matter, and they've done everything they could to show that the physical media is, at best, a convenience for the user. I'd like it to be the "proof of purchase", but I'd also like cheesecake to be fat-free. It ain't. No point in standing around wishing the sky were purple.

 

In any case, the keywheel you mentioned still negates your previous point. The customer is still presumed "guilty" until they can prove their "innocence" with the keywheel. Same for dongles. Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe was published in 1991, and as near as I can tell, the industry has successfully managed to release a game or two since then.

 

Thing is, you're making the wrong argument. If you want to swap notes about how non-physical media is taking away our rights as consumers, I could talk about that all day. But what you're doing is saying that because one game has abused online verification, that all online verification is bad, and that this problem would go away if we used physical media. That's a logic pretzel that no one is going to wrap their head around, sorry.

[Protoplasym]

Please give me 'one' example of another Single Player game that requires the user to be online 100% of the time, to play the Single Player aspect of the game... considering you don't think it's anything new, then please tell me another game that does what Starcraft II and Diablo III do. I'm all ears.

 

It's not really relevant to the point I'm trying to make. What I had stated was that user verification has been going on a very long time, and it had always (in some way or another) expected the user to prove his/her purchase prior to use of the software. Demanding the user be online, even for a single player game, is just the latest iteration of this very old idea. Again, the point you made, which generated so many conflicting responses, was that you wanted proof that a 'guilty until proven innocent' system could benefit the industry or gamers. My point was that the industry had always worked under the idea that users should be verified, the only areas which have changed are the methods. I understand, and even agree, that some of the current methods are unacceptable, but that doesn't change the fact that user verification has been important to the industry's growth over the past four decades.

 

Where did I say that? I'm of the mind that a purchase of physical media well enough constitutes "proof of purchase", and that should suffice. That, or start putting physical keys in with the physical box (Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe anyone? Remember that Code Wheel.... worked out just fine for me), or simply require the disc be in drive. That, or quit making video games, because if the model is, "you have to prove to us every time to play your single player game that you actually purchased the game legitimately, then guess what... I'll simply play what I have and won't support Companies with that mindset"

 

Where did you say what?

 

Anyway, I agree that a physical media should constitute proof of purchase, but it doesn't. Publishers have spent a great deal of effort setting up their support boundaries on this matter, and they've done everything they could to show that the physical media is, at best, a convenience for the user. I'd like it to be the "proof of purchase", but I'd also like cheesecake to be fat-free. It ain't. No point in standing around wishing the sky were purple.

 

In any case, the keywheel you mentioned still negates your previous point. The customer is still presumed "guilty" until they can prove their "innocence" with the keywheel. Same for dongles. Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe was published in 1991, and as near as I can tell, the industry has successfully managed to release a game or two since then.

 

Thing is, you're making the wrong argument. If you want to swap notes about how non-physical media is taking away our rights as consumers, I could talk about that all day. But what you're doing is saying that because one game has abused online verification, that all online verification is bad, and that this problem would go away if we used physical media. That's a logic pretzel that no one is going to wrap their head around, sorry.

 

My point exactly! These newer methods do not in any way benefit the Gamer, they in fact are a detriment to the Gamer and his/her experience.... which completely negates the point of a Video Game Player buying a video game to enjoy said video game.

 

Interesting, except that in the case of SWOTL, I can STILL play the game.... as long as I have the wheel, and a computer to play the software. Forcing me to connect to a server to play a single player game is entirely a different manner... and the poster above your last post entirely proves my point there... look at Ubisoft literally taking the ability away for people to play select games that are tied to server verifications for each play.... how's that working out for people who want to play Assassins Creed on the PC... well I guess they can go fuck themselves, how dare those gamers expect to be able to enjoy a video game they paid for... they might as well stand around and wish the sky were purple.

 

 

You make great points, and it has been enjoyable arguing with you, but at the end of the day - if you're going to continue to make excuses and outright well placed defenses for todays Devs/Pubs and their actions/stances towards gamers, then you might as well stand 'with' them imho. You can't be on both sides... it doesn't work that way.

[godslabrat]

My point exactly! These newer methods do not in any way benefit the Gamer, they in fact are a detriment to the Gamer and his/her experience.... which completely negates the point of a Video Game Player buying a video game to enjoy said video game.

 

And what I have been explaining is that you may have a point, but you are not making it well. You started off merely demanding we show you the logic behind basic user verification, and then went off on a completely different point about non-physical media being bad for the gamer. Neither of which, by the way, was the topic of this thread, so a lot of us really aren't sure why you're bringing it up. In short, you're communicating very poorly.

 

You make great points, and it has been enjoyable arguing with you, but at the end of the day - if you're going to continue to make excuses and outright well placed defenses for todays Devs/Pubs and their actions/stances towards gamers, then you might as well stand 'with' them imho. You can't be on both sides... it doesn't work that way.

 

See, this is another example of you speaking for another poster. That's seen as being rude and needlessly confrontational. You've had enough trouble explaining your own position, please don't presume to speak for mine.

 

In any case, I think I've made myself clear. The last word is yours if you'd like it.

[Protoplasym]

My point exactly! These newer methods do not in any way benefit the Gamer, they in fact are a detriment to the Gamer and his/her experience.... which completely negates the point of a Video Game Player buying a video game to enjoy said video game.

 

And what I have been explaining is that you may have a point, but you are not making it well. You started off merely demanding we show you the logic behind basic user verification, and then went off on a completely different point about non-physical media being bad for the gamer. Neither of which, by the way, was the topic of this thread, so a lot of us really aren't sure why you're bringing it up. In short, you're communicating very poorly.

 

You make great points, and it has been enjoyable arguing with you, but at the end of the day - if you're going to continue to make excuses and outright well placed defenses for todays Devs/Pubs and their actions/stances towards gamers, then you might as well stand 'with' them imho. You can't be on both sides... it doesn't work that way.

 

See, this is another example of you speaking for another poster. That's seen as being rude and needlessly confrontational. You've had enough trouble explaining your own position, please don't presume to speak for mine.

 

In any case, I think I've made myself clear. The last word is yours if you'd like it.

 

I did? Animan asked me what was going to stop me from stealing from said companies if they didn't employ said tactics to ensure their software was legitimately paid for... thank Animan and Rex Dart for asking me questions to which I simply replied. I'll politely disagree.

 

I feel like I've covered my points beautifully. You can disagree, that's fine by me. I pretty much covered that with my last post.

 

 

good day

[Chuck D. Head]

Usually, I am a great champion of the "ignore user" feature on this site. Unfortunately, it does no good when the people who's online company I do enjoy keep replying to said ignored user. Maybe future updates will allow me to ignore threads featuring ignored users and their asshattery.

[Austin]

For some of you that are, what's your main reasoning?

 

Pretty stupid-simple reasons for me, but.. New hardware (always kinda exciting, unless it's a $600 system), new controller that looks pretty cool, instant backwards compatibility, and New Super Mario Bros. U.

[bomberpunk]

i'd love to know the total count of people who have clicked ignore bomberpunk.

 

i'm excited about the zombie game, and Nintendo Land seems very interesting even if it nothing more than a Mario Party ripoff.

[Animan]

I did? Animan asked me what was going to stop me from stealing from said companies if they didn't employ said tactics to ensure their software was legitimately paid for... thank Animan and Rex Dart for asking me questions to which I simply replied. I'll politely disagree.

 

 

Um, no.

 

"If you WERE allowed to transfer your downloads to another system and keep them on the original system, then what's to prevent someone from copying their games to a friend's system?"

 

Did I point on you specifically? No. I'm done posting about this.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Animan

[Metal Ghost]

For some of you that are, what's your main reasoning?

 

Pretty stupid-simple reasons for me, but.. New hardware (always kinda exciting, unless it's a $600 system), new controller that looks pretty cool, instant backwards compatibility, and New Super Mario Bros. U.

 

Yea, in this instance that's definitely the case for me. If the price is right, I may jump in on it. It also helps that I sat out the Wii (though I play it pretty often at my in-laws), so I have an instant collection of games that I'd like to play but haven't yet. And I can finally bring my Epic Mickey game back home from my in-laws! But realistically, I'll probably wait until further down the road and pick it up as a second system for the next-gen.

[Protoplasym]

I will wait for a price drop, and for the first round of exclusives to (hopefully) come down from $50 to $30-40. Same thing I did with the Wii, took a couple years before everything started dropping, takes about 3 years for the main exclusives to become 'Players Choice' versions, which are usually priced around $20-30. Should be an awesome system in about 2-3 years from now.... hopefully around 30-50 titles worth having by that time.

 

I have a feeling Nintendo will continue to shoot themselves in the foot graphically... and will most likely not take advatage of the 2.5d possibilities that imho make the Wii such a force to be reckoned with in terms of Retro/Classic Gaming possibilities. I am not worried about backwards compatibility because I have a backup Wii, and I have a feeling my original Wii will outlive me (Nintendo makes great consoles from my experience, if you take care of 'em, they will last).

[cimerians]

According to this guy its SEVEN YEARS LATE ALREADY!

 

http://mynintendonews.com/2012/08/15/ex-darksiders-2-developer-says-wii-u-is-a-400-xbox-360-seven-years-late/

 

[Rex Dart]

I wonder if it'll upscale old Wii games? They look far nicer at 1280x800+ than you'd expect. If the Wii-U pulled that off, well, it'd be like the Wii we should've had seven years ago.

[cimerians]

I wonder if it'll upscale old Wii games? They look far nicer at 1280x800+ than you'd expect. If the Wii-U pulled that off, well, it'd be like the Wii we should've had seven years ago.

 

Totally agree, that would be sweet.

 

Edit: Nevermind. As usual Nintendo disappoints.

http://www.1up.com/n...ook-nicer-wii-u

 

Since the above is old news I hope they still do it.

Edited August 21, 2012 by cimerians

[Protoplasym]

I wonder if it'll upscale old Wii games? They look far nicer at 1280x800+ than you'd expect. If the Wii-U pulled that off, well, it'd be like the Wii we should've had seven years ago.

 

Totally agree, that would be sweet.

 

Edit: Nevermind. As usual Nintendo disappoints.

http://www.1up.com/n...ook-nicer-wii-u

 

Since the above is old news I hope they still do it.

 

VERY good point, guys... I agree ten fold!!! I knew there was something I wanted to add... that's what it was.

 

 

The Wii U imho, should be able to play 'all' Wii games with 4xAA... I'll live if they're the same resolutions... I simply want AA for my Wii Catalogue!!! If they did that, I would quit playing Wii games on the Wii. But seeing as that would be too much value for money, N. will most likely not entertain such an idea.