people can talk about the power of the cloud all they want, i dont care even if it works, a game that needs a internet connection to work, only to be gutted down without it, isnt a game to me, especially if its a single player game
That's pretty unfair. So, how a game runs determines whether or not it is a game? When I say runs, I mean what is runs on. Whether it is the cloud, your local PC, direct streaming (say, what Sony is doing), or your local handheld/home console - what it runs on determines if it is a game?
In fact, this remark seems so silly to me - because the idea here is that games are ALREADY gutted because there is only so much you can push with set hardware specs. Yet, the cloud allows you to do more than you normally could - so games are technically always gutted when put on set hardware with no optional expansion.
I guess all the games Sony will be streaming means they aren't games since they require an internet connection. I just can't fathom how anyone can think this way. It's fine to not want to have to worry about an internet connection, and this particular developer says they have a second version that doesn't use it - and yes of course the game is gutted because it has less to work with. That means it shouldn't look better optionally when there is more to work with?
Liken it to PC settings for games. Should games only be made for the lowest common denominator of pc's and not have the ability to adjust to those who have better hardware (and thus, provide better physics, visuals, etc)? That's what this is basically. You can play games offline - but when you're online you have additional boosts to the game.
Last I checked, a video game is a way for me to find entertainment in a virtual world. You can't define it by how that virtual world is delivered.
