Plumpbiscuit
Member
Surely Ubisoft should be under scrutiny for this, it's fucking false advertising right in front of your face.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Confirmed: For Honor campaign is always online.
- Thread starter Gamezone
- Start date
EventHorizon
Member
If I was extremely excited over For Honor I'd suck it up and buy it. As it is, I'm only curious. This always online policy pushes me over the edge to straight not caring.
can't speak for that guy, but i did the same, mainly because i didn't want the inconvenience of being invaded. i like elements of what being online brought, like the messages and blood stains, but i didn't feel they were particularly integral to the experience. i mean, some people really get into the PVP stuff and love invading and being invaded (kinky) but it's not what it's about for me. they did change how being invaded works in later games, bloodborne for instance it never happens until you reach an area with a bell ringing woman later in the game, i believe... but the moment i was invaded and killed the guy, i just went offline. i'm not interested in that side of the game.
Jonneh3003
Banned
I get that there isn't much reason to always be online but does it really impact your interest in the game?
BakedTanooki
Member
Because i had no real interest in the online components and did not wanted to be invaded. I wanted to experience the souls games isolated, all on my own.
Sorcerer Supreme
Member
i always laugh when people say "i don't want to be invaded so i play offline" about souls games as if it's something that constantly happens if you're online.
GwyndolinCinder
Member
Imagine if you are doing a no death run etc, then yea you don't want to be invaded.
Dark souls 2 was the worst for this, cause of dumb ass soul memory, getting invaded on base level runs by the pvp meta guys.
Pretty much does if you're Human Form.
I did the same. It's just not something I had any interest in dealing with.
Toadthemushroom
Member
The problem for me isn't that you need to be online to play it (only my handhelds ever go offline), but what being online might ensue for the game design.
For example, always online suggests that Ubisoft will be doing some sort of data analysis on their servers and changing the game balance in realtime to reflect that -- does the game have mechanics or game elements that change based on player data? If so I'm much less likely to want to play a game that's designed in this way.
I don't buy Ubisoft's excuse being that single player unlocks affect multiplayer, that doesn't require a persistent internet connection. It's got to be something to do with using player data.
If Ubisoft genuinely had a good reason for the online requirement they wouldn't have communicated it in a single unconvincing sentence. And if there is a great reason for it that really does improve the game let us know!
For example, always online suggests that Ubisoft will be doing some sort of data analysis on their servers and changing the game balance in realtime to reflect that -- does the game have mechanics or game elements that change based on player data? If so I'm much less likely to want to play a game that's designed in this way.
I don't buy Ubisoft's excuse being that single player unlocks affect multiplayer, that doesn't require a persistent internet connection. It's got to be something to do with using player data.
If Ubisoft genuinely had a good reason for the online requirement they wouldn't have communicated it in a single unconvincing sentence. And if there is a great reason for it that really does improve the game let us know!
EventHorizon
Member
TL;DR; In this day and age a game has to work hard to get me to buy it at launch. For Honor isn't doing that so it gets pushed to the back of my wish list where I might give it another look when the price drops in a year or so.
For me...yes. We all know of the problems of servers being crappy or totally turned off later in the game's life. I don't plan on taking part in the multiplayer so that extra risk gives me nothing. Meanwhile I've got a huge backlog of games, and other soon to be released games like Horizon Zero Dawn that I really can't wait to play.
Nowadays games have a lot of competition. They don't get my money by default, and have to fight to get me to buy them. UbiSoft just made For Honor a bit less appealing which knocks it down on my To Buy list. Now it's at the point where I'll give it another look in a year or so when it has been massively discounted. At that point my issues with the game being on line all the time will get balanced out with a much lower cost. The game will also have been patched a few times to fix the inevitable bug it will have at launch.
Tertullian
Member
Oh thank God. For a while I was afraid I might want this game enough to actually install that dreadful malware Uplay on my computer. But now that it's clear Ubisoft decided to Ubisoft, I can just say "I hope every scumbag involved in this decision shoves his head so far up his ass that he disappears entirely" and forget about it.
Hitman did this, and that's why I don't own Hitman. There's nothing that justifies blocking single player, local-only content behind an unnecessary, online wall.
Some are speculating that the single player component has an online feature, which is marginally better, but rarely worth locking the entire experience behind instead of giving people an option. This situation is unique in that they stated it would be an offline experience, and now have doubled back on that statements.
Those who accept these restrictions and unequivocally reject the criticisms are only helping move the norms for publishers ever forward into inconvenience - maybe not for those entitled individuals, but for other people they seem completely oblivious to and for whom they lack any empathy or cognizance.
Some are speculating that the single player component has an online feature, which is marginally better, but rarely worth locking the entire experience behind instead of giving people an option. This situation is unique in that they stated it would be an offline experience, and now have doubled back on that statements.
Those who accept these restrictions and unequivocally reject the criticisms are only helping move the norms for publishers ever forward into inconvenience - maybe not for those entitled individuals, but for other people they seem completely oblivious to and for whom they lack any empathy or cognizance.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Ah, I see the "Hail Ants!" posts have arrived, as has the second guessing of people putting this title on the pile of the thousands of games released yearly explicitly due to dislike instaed of ambivalence posts.
Mithos
Member
Angry? I think the commentary have been way too lenient so far...
Allow me...
Cancer?
Have they cured cancer? Because I'll support this singleplayer campaign requiring always online if they have cured cancer,
but short of that they are out of their minds if they think I'm gonna pretend that whatever reason for always online they have made
is so important and so awesome that I will have to play a singleplayer campaign online.
;P ;P ;P
DirtyLarry
Member
I posted in the other thread how no way it would always be online and it would be like a Watch Dogs 2 where certain elements need online but the rest of the game would still work regardless.
Damn was I wrong.
Also let me just back some other posters sentiments, I always turn all online elements off in a game myself if I have the choice. Now that I think of it besides Bloodborne, I know I have done it for The Division and Watch Dogs 2, both made by guess who.
It actually made sense in a game like Watch Dogs 2, but I just do not have the time to deal with it. If I am playing it means I have some rare time alloted to do so, so I want it on my terms, not the games.
So I am curious to see how it works as I said in For Honor. I was not sold on the game myself anyway. Seemed kind of boring when I played the Beta.
With that said only time will tell if this is a brave move by Ubisoft and the beginning of how things are going to be or a dumb move and the game is a flop because gamers speak with their wallets and say no to this concept of always online being a necessity.
I do think always online is an inevitable outcome for a multitude of reasons. Shit, unless you take specific steps to disable features, we are already always online with our smartphones, and make no mistake about it, video game companies would love the additional type of metrics that mobile provides for a whole bunch of reasons, with reason #1 being dollar dollar bill.
Damn was I wrong.
Also let me just back some other posters sentiments, I always turn all online elements off in a game myself if I have the choice. Now that I think of it besides Bloodborne, I know I have done it for The Division and Watch Dogs 2, both made by guess who.
It actually made sense in a game like Watch Dogs 2, but I just do not have the time to deal with it. If I am playing it means I have some rare time alloted to do so, so I want it on my terms, not the games.
So I am curious to see how it works as I said in For Honor. I was not sold on the game myself anyway. Seemed kind of boring when I played the Beta.
With that said only time will tell if this is a brave move by Ubisoft and the beginning of how things are going to be or a dumb move and the game is a flop because gamers speak with their wallets and say no to this concept of always online being a necessity.
I do think always online is an inevitable outcome for a multitude of reasons. Shit, unless you take specific steps to disable features, we are already always online with our smartphones, and make no mistake about it, video game companies would love the additional type of metrics that mobile provides for a whole bunch of reasons, with reason #1 being dollar dollar bill.
EventHorizon
Member
I don't see it that way at all. You don't have to be angry to not want to buy the game at launch. Plenty of people wouldn't buy the game even if it wasn't always online. All this does is push more people from the buy to the no buy column.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Jupp.
TheSpoiler
Member
Please explain.
Lets be honest.
You aren't going to read anything. You'll dance around it because you worked for the company. You are better off just not commentating instead of pretending consumers are idiots, but you keep on digging.
It's technical problems on Ubisoft's side or Ubi shutting down servers etc. that people are worried about, not their own internet connection.
If servers are down the best internet in the world won't do you any good.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Looks like Gamespot have received an official statement too.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fo...et-connecti/1100-6446205/?ftag=GSS-05-10aaa0b
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fo...et-connecti/1100-6446205/?ftag=GSS-05-10aaa0b
Gamezone
Gold Member
Yeah, like we care if people are cheating in offline single player. Hell, use mods, cheat codes, whatever. What you do in solo mode should be up tp you. Keep multiplayer online, but leave single player out of it.
Mexen
Member
good man
Wow, you missed out on alot that makes Dark Souls special then.
Good point ! Didn't think about the servers being down.
Shitty industry practices over the years made me immune to them now. It's sad, but yeah.
I doubt we should buy For Honor for it's single player btw... Pretty sure the multi is where the fun's at.
yeah blows my mind how some people are kindly accepting aand applaudin g these straight lies while at the same time treating Sean Muray as evil mastermind
BakedTanooki
Member
Not really. I finished every souls game 2 or 3 times, and played online after the first offline playthrough. So i am fully aware of the online features. But they are not what makes the souls games special in my opinion. Not at all.
I'd rather spend whatever amount that was towards another "top dollar" game instead that isn't doing something like this.
I have this game preordered for $28.24 CAD ($21.53USD). Not gonna hesitate for a second with cancelling if this doesn't change before release.
But yeah, that's just me. I think you'll find that some people in this thread are basically instead of buying this game day 1 now, waiting for a fire sale, so they're going to do exactly what you proposed.
But there are people like me as well that on principle refuse to support games (however little they cost) that are doing this aka vote with your wallet.
I was super interested in Hitman, and decently interested in Crew as well. And those have gone on great sales, still haven't bought em. Hitman's one step away from being a "can purchase now" game, hopefully their next patch addresses it.
TheSpoiler
Member
I guess I'll try and respond to people who are dumbfounded at the fact that people are willing to drop For Honor over this news. I mean, it's been said on almost every page, explained various ways, but for whatever reason, it's not getting through. So lemme try.
First things first, finding out through a community manager is fucking dumb. Ubisoft should have released an official statement on this or spouted some PR in a letter, not gamers finding out because a dude on a forum asked about it. That's crazy, but only because this game was touted to have an offline campaign.
Like, we get it, things get cut, added, changed, whatever. But letting the consumer know is far better than having them suss it out like this.
On the topic of the campaign, Ubisoft was touting a fully fledged one. It's a multiplayer game, but with an actual sizeable single player mode attached (their words). So people can cut it out with that "ohh but it's a multiplayer game". Not even their words.
Not like a singleplayer campaign is a bad thing anyway. That's more sales for them if a person would pick it up for the campaign only. Maybe they enjoy the combat but don't want to play with others. People like me might trickle in and start messing around with the multi, finding out they might like it.
Server problems can happen at any time, and then the game becomes a coaster until shit is fixed. Ubisoft's track record isn't the greatest, and that's not including PSN/XBLA outages and people who don't have decent internet. There are far more of those people than you think.
For anti-cheat stuff, many games have done so for years without resorting to always online. For Honor isn't some special flower.
So, basically, it rubs people the wrong way. And that's fine. People have dropped games for much, much less, and much, much more. That's their right as a consumer, and nobody should tell them so long as the information isn't wrong.
Gamers aren't entitled because they aren't buying a product that doesn't serve them properly. That's hilariously silly. We are the consumer. We choose. And there's nothing wrong with making that choice. Even if some ex-Ubisoft guy wants to come up and play PR for them, the consumer isn't wrong in making a decision on this.
If it doesn't affect you, cool. Play on. But at least people are giving reasons. No need to get angry or despise them for choosing not to play.
First things first, finding out through a community manager is fucking dumb. Ubisoft should have released an official statement on this or spouted some PR in a letter, not gamers finding out because a dude on a forum asked about it. That's crazy, but only because this game was touted to have an offline campaign.
Like, we get it, things get cut, added, changed, whatever. But letting the consumer know is far better than having them suss it out like this.
On the topic of the campaign, Ubisoft was touting a fully fledged one. It's a multiplayer game, but with an actual sizeable single player mode attached (their words). So people can cut it out with that "ohh but it's a multiplayer game". Not even their words.
Not like a singleplayer campaign is a bad thing anyway. That's more sales for them if a person would pick it up for the campaign only. Maybe they enjoy the combat but don't want to play with others. People like me might trickle in and start messing around with the multi, finding out they might like it.
Server problems can happen at any time, and then the game becomes a coaster until shit is fixed. Ubisoft's track record isn't the greatest, and that's not including PSN/XBLA outages and people who don't have decent internet. There are far more of those people than you think.
For anti-cheat stuff, many games have done so for years without resorting to always online. For Honor isn't some special flower.
So, basically, it rubs people the wrong way. And that's fine. People have dropped games for much, much less, and much, much more. That's their right as a consumer, and nobody should tell them so long as the information isn't wrong.
Gamers aren't entitled because they aren't buying a product that doesn't serve them properly. That's hilariously silly. We are the consumer. We choose. And there's nothing wrong with making that choice. Even if some ex-Ubisoft guy wants to come up and play PR for them, the consumer isn't wrong in making a decision on this.
If it doesn't affect you, cool. Play on. But at least people are giving reasons. No need to get angry or despise them for choosing not to play.
Enjoy them saying you have to pay another 60 dollars if you want to continue playing the game cause now For Honor 2 is out so they are shutting the servers down for For Honor. Just buy 2 if you want to keep playing.
It's disgenuiius to pretend you think this is about not having internet to play the game. This is about the fact that this is a way for them to control how long you get to play the game. You're not paying for the game, you are payi for the rights to play it as long as they allow you to. And they aren't even going to tell you how long the rental is for either. It's whenever they decide to end it and they'll let you know when that time comes.
Gamezone
Gold Member
lol OFFLINE CAMPAIGN is even mentioned on steam storepage :-D
It's everywhere. Bullshit.
VibratingDonkey
Member
I don't understand how after games like SimCity, Diablo 37 etc. have had major, prolific server problems, people don't understand that for most of us, it's their end of the connection we are concerned about, not ours. Games with online functionality frequently suffer issues around launch. So it's not like it's an uncommon problem either, or concept to grasp. Like, what kind of all-encompassing cataclysmic event needs to transpire for these incredulous, incessant "everyone's online anyway, what's your problem?" arguments to cease happening? Half the fucking internet going down was apparently not enough.
While it's currently making me more angry than what is rational, it is annoying to have a blatant and legit grievance get continually dismissed by flat out stupidity/willful ignorance. I'm sorry, but it's either that, or you're bad faithing/trolling, and it doesn't really matter which as far as I'm concerned.
While it's currently making me more angry than what is rational, it is annoying to have a blatant and legit grievance get continually dismissed by flat out stupidity/willful ignorance. I'm sorry, but it's either that, or you're bad faithing/trolling, and it doesn't really matter which as far as I'm concerned.
That's unfortunate for all the singleplayer folks. For me For Honor's Multiplayer is the more appealing part of the package so it doesn't really affect me as most of my time will be spent playing online. But I get why always online bothers people, especially since Ubisoft stated before that the campaign would be offline.
While i think its always good to educate ppl on why this is a bad thing, it does seem to me they are atleast in the minority which is a good thing. The biggest mind boggling thing to me is that this game is gonna be very niche already and things like this are just going to sink it.
tioslash
Member
I don´t know how some people can still say that this isn´t a problem. If there is a company that will most likely have server issues at launch is Ubisoft. And there is always a chance that online issues can last for long periods of time or just at random whenever anyone wants to just play enjoy a single player campaign.
I´m not worried about my internet connection, I´m worried about their servers.
I´m not worried about my internet connection, I´m worried about their servers.
Mega Caprison
Member
because its ubisoft, everything they do iritate people
DoubleTake
Member
Sigh...I'm still really excited for this game. Gameplay and online part especially but this sort of stuff makes me scratch my head.
You would think devs are smart enough to give people the OPTION at the beginning of a game.
Title Screen Online - Offline Mode.
Choosing offline means you lose the singleplayer to mutliplayer features theyve added.
Not difficult. Taking away the option, especially after theyve said you can play the game offline is ridiculous.
You would think devs are smart enough to give people the OPTION at the beginning of a game.
Title Screen Online - Offline Mode.
Choosing offline means you lose the singleplayer to mutliplayer features theyve added.
Not difficult. Taking away the option, especially after theyve said you can play the game offline is ridiculous.