Live is Ruining Gaming!

Live is the only reason i still play games.DesmondPills

Heres why:

-Most games are 8 hours max without live.
-You no longer get the full game for $60....instead, add ons come out later, through live, for more money.
-Very few games have offline co-op anymore.
-Campaign mode is neglected, since M$ expects us to spend the majority of gaming time online.
-Live is expensive.

I wouldnt be so pissed if every game had offline co-op, reasonably long single player campaigns and the game in full at realease....Microsoft is already making enough money from broken 360s, which is a conspriacy in itself. Im not a troll, btw.

Im already aware everyone will disagree with me, since xbox 360 has turned pure gamers into live junkies. Theres still a little bit of hope in gamers like me, who dont worship 1080p, but instead, offline gameplay as a whole.
mistermykol

How dare they offer us leaderboards, multiplayer gaming, tournaments, downloadable content and voice chat!
Really though, Live is great and I don't think it's motivating developers to do less with the single-player portions of their games, just EA. It's an innovation and it sucks if you don't have it, but single-player games were all developers had to make in the past. The online element is an entirely different part of the game to focus on now, and a lot of gamers prefer online multiplayer to single player games. Developers are still creating games like Mass Effect and Bioshock, and Guitar Hero II still has same-console coop play (even though that's the only coop play). Live didn't ruin gaming, it's making it better.

Um no.

Online is the future, get over it. A good online component can infinately extend the life of a game.

Most games are not 8 hours, maybe when you play them on easy or use the strategy guide, but even my first time through GeoW was closer to 10. Same goes for Lost Planet, and they were considered to be very short games by today's standards. If the reviews say it is short, rent it instead. Save yourself some money to buy a longer game.

Offline Co-op is fine, but split screen in anything but a racing game sucks, hell most of the time it still sucks there too.

I like the idea of online enabled everything, even though I play most games offline, it gives me a reson to go back and play it again, with new downloaded content and tournaments and such.

[QUOTE="DesmondPills"] Live is the only reason i still play games.mistermykol

[QUOTE="DesmondPills"] Live is the only reason i still play games.mistermykol

Heres why:

-Most games are 8 hours max without live.
-You no longer get the full game for $60....instead, add ons come out later, through live, for more money.
-Very few games have offline co-op anymore.
-Campaign mode is neglected, since M$ expects us to spend the majority of gaming time online.
-Live is expensive.

I wouldnt be so pissed if every game had offline co-op, reasonably long single player campaigns and the game in full at realease....Microsoft is already making enough money from broken 360s, which is a conspriacy in itself. Im not a troll, btw.

Im already aware everyone will disagree with me, since xbox 360 has turned pure gamers into live junkies. Theres still a little bit of hope in gamers like me, who dont worship 1080p, but instead, offline gameplay as a whole.

Point of this thread: "Most" games cant stand alone without Live.
mistermykol

Bioshock is not going to offer Live, which is rare.

I'm looking forward to a lengthy campaign.

I agree with you though. I am tired of games with short campaigns. I like On-line multiplayer, but I look at it as an Add-on to a campaign. Multiplayer doesn't make the game. Its just an added bonus. No more no less.

blah, blah, sure live's not that great so what then, buy the "few" games that don't need it and quit whining,...

oblivion, bioshock, etc

Heres why:

-Most games are 8 hours max without live.
-You no longer get the full game for $60....instead, add ons come out later, through live, for more money.
-Very few games have offline co-op anymore.
-Campaign mode is neglected, since M$ expects us to spend the majority of gaming time online.
-Live is expensive.

I wouldnt be so pissed if every game had offline co-op, reasonably long single player campaigns and the game in full at realease....Microsoft is already making enough money from broken 360s, which is a conspriacy in itself. Im not a troll, btw.

Im already aware everyone will disagree with me, since xbox 360 has turned pure gamers into live junkies. Theres still a little bit of hope in gamers like me, who dont worship 1080p, but instead, offline gameplay as a whole.

Point of this thread: "Most" games cant stand alone without Live.
mistermykol

live is the way forward either get on ot get out of the way... btw let me just run through a few great offline games PSU offline is still pritty good, Deadrising, saints row, fight night and oblivion the addons arnt that good except for shivering isles thats soon to come plus many more games to come crack down,resident evil 5, alan wake and mass effect.

in conclusion stop complaining beacause you dont have or can afford xbox live BOO HOO! and that my 2 cents

I agree with the microsoft braking consoles for more moneyprettynice422

MSFT is going to need to come up with a better incentive for us to be shelling out $50 a year if Sony's service is any good. And don't give me that, "it's only 3 cents a second" BS...it's still 50 dollars.northface13

an equal balance between offline and online would be suitable.mistermykol

some games do.  gears, R6V,PD0 just to name a few that i've played split screen.  to me being an older gamer in his 30's live adds to the experience.  like the old days at the arcade with your buddies.

the 360 has more balance of online and offline games to date.

Heres why:

-Most games are 8 hours max without live.
-You no longer get the full game for $60....instead, add ons come out later, through live, for more money.
-Very few games have offline co-op anymore.
-Campaign mode is neglected, since M$ expects us to spend the majority of gaming time online.
-Live is expensive.

I wouldnt be so pissed if every game had offline co-op, reasonably long single player campaigns and the game in full at realease....Microsoft is already making enough money from broken 360s, which is a conspriacy in itself. Im not a troll, btw.

Im already aware everyone will disagree with me, since xbox 360 has turned pure gamers into live junkies. Theres still a little bit of hope in gamers like me, who dont worship 1080p, but instead, offline gameplay as a whole.

Point of this thread: "Most" games cant stand alone without Live.
mistermykol

jmartinez1983 - I didn't want to quote your post because it would be way too long... but WELL SAID. I completely agree and couldn't have stated it better myself.ryanjtravis

i'm with this guy -- good post

How dare they offer us leaderboards, multiplayer gaming, tournaments, downloadable content and voice chat!
Really though, Live is great and I don't think it's motivating developers to do less with the single-player portions of their games, just EA. It's an innovation and it sucks if you don't have it, but single-player games were all developers had to make in the past. The online element is an entirely different part of the game to focus on now, and a lot of gamers prefer online multiplayer to single player games. Developers are still creating games like Mass Effect and Bioshock, and Guitar Hero II still has same-console coop play (even though that's the only coop play). Live didn't ruin gaming, it's making it better.

DaHunta90

Your missing the OP's point. Because of Live being offered most games are focused on the Live portions of the games since Live is a huge feature Microsoft is focusing on and they are doing away with offline co-op in alot of games as well as effecting the length and quaility of the single player experience. Sure its great that live is being offered but this dosent mean they need to sacrifice the single player game and completely do away with offline co-op etc.

Live should be an addition to what we are used to in console gaming and not such a focus as to do away with single player experiences, length, and co-op modes.

Why is it MS this and MS that? MS does not make every game for Xbox 360. It is obviously the trend that gaming is going to. Expect the same on the PS3. The Wii currently doesn't have any online multiplayer in the US. Maybe you should buy one of those.b11051973

PC's have been using downloadable extensions/mods forever, and the first 'online only' games appeared years ago. Why would a console version of that model suddenly taint the game quality?

Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

While i understand what your saying you can't put Microsoft in their as a reason. Why? Because Microsoft can't force companies to focus on Xbox Live at all (you can argue, but you would be wrong). Also shooters usually don't have any longer than 8-12 hours of campaign (while most are shorter). Now look at this... Jade Empire... beat it in about 12 hours (non shooter), Fable... beat it in 7 hours (non shooter), King Kong... beat it in about 6-8 hours (shooter, action/adventure), Kameo... beat it in 12 hours (action/adventure).

Now while i do point out that none of those are shooters (which i know you aren't focusing on), i am trying to make a point that most RPGs/action adventure as in this case all of those but Kameo have no online and they are at average of about 8-9 hours of gameplay. Now something interesting that is a nice fact is... Most RPGs (or adventure-esk) titles that are longer than about 30 hours are usually the big hit ones (Final Fantasy, Kotor, and Oblivion). Now shooters that are big hits now a day MUST have good online. Gears of War compaign (while fun and actin packed) lacked the most fundamental part of a campaign........ a story. It was a huge game and the biggest reason people play it is because of online (while many dropped off from the update because they are upset they won't win because they lack skill).

Xbox Live isn't ruining games because online multiplayer is really the new age of gaming and while it is taking the gaming community by storm there are still non online games that are very, very good.

How dare they offer us leaderboards, multiplayer gaming, tournaments, downloadable content and voice chat!
Really though, Live is great and I don't think it's motivating developers to do less with the single-player portions of their games, just EA. It's an innovation and it sucks if you don't have it, but single-player games were all developers had to make in the past. The online element is an entirely different part of the game to focus on now, and a lot of gamers prefer online multiplayer to single player games. Developers are still creating games like Mass Effect and Bioshock, and Guitar Hero II still has same-console coop play (even though that's the only coop play). Live didn't ruin gaming, it's making it better.

DaHunta90

"I don't think it's motivating developers to do less with the single-player portions of their games, just EA."  Nice One man

I agree with everything you said except the fact that all people like online games better.  That may be the case however it has not been proven.  Myself I play just about every game on 360, but I have only played Rainbow Six and GEARS of war online.  In this thread alone it seems to b 50/50 on which type of games people like.

[QUOTE="AeroTow"]Live is great, Xbox was the first consol to really introduce multiplayer gaming, its more innovative than you appreciate.dbrook

[QUOTE="AeroTow"]Live is great, Xbox was the first consol to really introduce multiplayer gaming, its more innovative than you appreciate.dbrook

I think he meant online gaming not Multiplayer.  Chill out man.

[QUOTE="mistermykol"][QUOTE="DesmondPills"] Live is the only reason i still play games.DesmondPills

True... plus $50 a year is a steal, dude. If anything, Live means I have a reason to replay my games after I beat them.