I have my PS5 and XSX hooked up to my 1GB internet, 24x7x365. I am all for online all the time. Makes no difference to me. But I understand the concern for those that don't have internet....It seems to me like people in the gaming community love to make hay over the most random of things, but before I call this random, I really want to better understand it.
My consoles are connected to via ethernet cables... they're always online. This is absolutely not a big deal to me. My PC is similarly always online (ethernet). My Macbook is always online (ethernet/wifi). There is nothing internet connected in my house that isn't always connected.
Which makes me wonder, what is with the vitriol towards things requiring an internet connection? Is there a legitimate concern here or is this just one more thing to get angry over?
*antagonism
-
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.
Antaganism towards "Always Online"
- Thread starter Mibu no ookami
- Start date
Spaceman292
Banned
They will as soon as they can get away with it. They already have in some places, not to mention deluxe editions and stuff which add 20% onto the price for practically nothing.
Nydius
Member
"Always online" is DRM. You are paying full retail price for a glorified rental that may last a couple months, or several years. But, eventually, it will end. You are giving up your limited consumer copyright protections just so a company can sell you "convenience" and microtransactions.
If you like being bent over and having your wallet taken for all you have, that's your prerogative -- but you don't get to tell the rest of us we should enjoy it as well.
If you like being bent over and having your wallet taken for all you have, that's your prerogative -- but you don't get to tell the rest of us we should enjoy it as well.
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
I will never understand the mental gymnastics people have over this. There is never a good reason to force always online for anything other than strict MP-Only titles. And even then, give players the ability to make their own servers.
But apparently people like having less rights?
flying_sq
Member
I get random internet drop outs (thanks a lot Spectrum), I travel frequently and don't have access to Internet for at least 50% of the time. I bring my gaming laptop for trips, but when I go to boot up a game and it tells me to F-off because the game phones home. It gets to the point where I just think about torrenting certain games just so I don't have to worry about it.
KloetenQuetsche
Member
So, if "always online" isn't a bad thing...
... why not building cars and coffee machines with that always online feature.
Hmmm...?
Is it possible that it isn't necessary? Hmmm? But who cares, I am always online, so what's the problem. I don't know
Seriously, in my opinion a developer had to bring good arguments for a single Player with always online law.
Otherwise they had to reduce the price, because it's less worthy when I cannot replay MY Game in ten years when the developer is gone to hell....
All guys with sympathy for always online gave up the idea that the thing I am paying for is mine. They accept a forever lasting small chance that some day the thing I am paying for is worthless.
NOT WITH ME!
... why not building cars and coffee machines with that always online feature.
Hmmm...?
Is it possible that it isn't necessary? Hmmm? But who cares, I am always online, so what's the problem. I don't know
Seriously, in my opinion a developer had to bring good arguments for a single Player with always online law.
Otherwise they had to reduce the price, because it's less worthy when I cannot replay MY Game in ten years when the developer is gone to hell....
All guys with sympathy for always online gave up the idea that the thing I am paying for is mine. They accept a forever lasting small chance that some day the thing I am paying for is worthless.
NOT WITH ME!
Rambotito
Member
Always online usually means it is a live service game which means it has microtransactions which means the publisher will skew the game towards you spending even more money on stuff that should be included in the base price. Look at examples like Assassins Creed Valhalla's level grind, Far Cry's microtransaction vendors and now battle passes!!!It seems to me like people in the gaming community love to make hay over the most random of things, but before I call this random, I really want to better understand it.
My consoles are connected to via ethernet cables... they're always online. This is absolutely not a big deal to me. My PC is similarly always online (ethernet). My Macbook is always online (ethernet/wifi). There is nothing internet connected in my house that isn't always connected.
Which makes me wonder, what is with the vitriol towards things requiring an internet connection? Is there a legitimate concern here or is this just one more thing to get angry over?
*antagonism
As 21Kiloton says in his Youtube videos, it's a store wrapped in a video game. On day 1 the store always works without a hitch, but the rest of the game is buggy shite.
RainblowDash
Gold Member
‘Always online’ is just more means of controlling the user and means you own that much less of what you paid for.
Guilty_AI
Member
oh my sweet summer child...
Some people are just too slow to get the point someone is making.
Puscifer
Member
Man I just love how much I swing on extremes on agreeing and disagreeing with you lol.Thanks for triggering the absolute living shit out of me with this Thread OP.
Imagine gaming since the 80's and wonder why Aways Online for Single Player games is met with antagonism..
I'll give you another random reason on top the most obvious and important ones people gave you already: I share my PSN account with my brother and that means one of us has to play offline.
The reality is and I don't care what people want to call it, but it's clear we're entering a reality where EVERYTHING is to be purchased because these companies just don't know to make money anymore. Used to have a business license? Nah a business plan. Photoshop perpetually for 250 or 15 a month endlessly while it steals all your information and sells it for even more profit. Car features, apps, appliances, video games, plane rides, software, music, even books are getting in on the action by fleecing you for either what used to be included, how it's purchased or licensed long after you've purchased it.
At the point if it hasn't been sold ala carte, turned into a subscription, and the only thing to understand it's only because they either haven't found a way too or your hobby or favorite thing is in such a specific niche that the easy money in doing so means the death of those companies.
Edit: now that I think about it, EVEN BIKES don't come with pedals or seats sometimes anymore.
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Gold Member
'I'm always online anyway, so I'm not bothered' is possibly the dumbest argument for always online games that I've ever heard.
How are you going to play your always online game again if the publishers decide to shut it down, genius?
The issue isn't that the games require internet connections... it's that the internet connection gives the publisher FAR too much power over how and when you play those games.
But, I guess it's all fine, because we know how upstanding and consumer friendly video games publishers are, don't we?
Fuck my old bones.
How are you going to play your always online game again if the publishers decide to shut it down, genius?
The issue isn't that the games require internet connections... it's that the internet connection gives the publisher FAR too much power over how and when you play those games.
But, I guess it's all fine, because we know how upstanding and consumer friendly video games publishers are, don't we?
Fuck my old bones.
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Always online games are the single reason why I didn't join the army.
Game companies obviously don't care about our men in uniform.
Makes me sick.
Game companies obviously don't care about our men in uniform.
Makes me sick.
supernova8
Banned
Surely piracy has dropped down to almost zero (at least on consoles) since the move to consoles with online stores and online multiplayer.
I remember back in the PS1 and PS2 days, practically everyone I knew had a "chipped" console that could play pirated games. Same thing for the Nintendo DS. Everyone I knew had an R4 cartridge. You could easily get them on eBay at one point before the crackdown happened.
It's hard to find any actual data on piracy but from my googling, the consensus (across various sites and forums) seems to be that piracy on consoles has been largely killed off since the PS4/XB1 era thanks to firmware updates. The idea is that certain games will only work with certain firmware versions or later, so even if you managed to hack, say, firmware v1.0, you wouldn't be able to play the latest games without updating to, say, v.1.5, and then you run the risk of your system getting exposed and locked out, bricked etc whatever security measures the platform holder has in place. Basically it's a moving target.
If we trust this notion that piracy on consoles has been (mostly) killed off, then in theory that's a massive chunk of revenue game publishers are now receiving that they weren't before due to piracy, and yet prices are still going up AND game companies continue to look for ways to milk even more money out of people after the initial purchase.
I see you're saying "did I say that piracy is the only factor?!" but if you're going to play that game and not even defend your argument, why bother bringing it up in the first place?
Heck, even Game Pass allows you to play your games offline once downloaded, although it does require you to authenticate once every 30 days - but that's not even remotely close to "always online". Plus it's a subscription so of course it's fair that they can check your subscription is valid.
If Game Pass can do it, everyone else can do it.
Last edited:
njean777
Member
I don’t like the idea of not being able to play my games if they decide to shut the servers down (which will happen eventually). Sure would I be playing those games that far into the future? Probably not , but I still like to know I can if I want. Really debating about Diablo 4 due to it being always online… really torn on it as that was the main reason I still have not bought GT7.
anothertech
Member
Just give me WoW 2 and I'll stop bitching about it
{insert code here}
Member
OP probably works for EA/Ubi. Hard to believe a normal person could advocate for something as anticonsumer as always-online drm.
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I dont like it, one because I'm not online gamer so being online only is useless to me and second, sometimes your internet get cuts off or its becomes too slow, you will no longer have access to single player mode.
Both FROM games and Capcom's Monster Hunter series have MP and yet they still allow you play them completely offline of you want.
I understand for MP only games or MMOs but games with SP mode should be allowed to played offline.
Both FROM games and Capcom's Monster Hunter series have MP and yet they still allow you play them completely offline of you want.
I understand for MP only games or MMOs but games with SP mode should be allowed to played offline.
Mercuryvoid
Neo Member
I tend to look at the simplest term of explanation, because others have dived deep enough to the Mariana trench of technical aspects of always online gaming.
In a product, both as creator and user, we always look to enhance and improve the product, make it more user friendly, durable, cost optimized (see, I don't use the word cheap, because cheap has a negative connotation), purposeful (make it more fun, in gaming situation), and other positive outcomes. This is what generally regarded as good practice in product and business development.
Now, we look at the always online in game. In the first post, OP stated that OP's console is connected to the internet 24/7. This by itself is a simple practice. I live in Indonesia, we have an internet renaissance couple of years back, and now I can say in Jakarta, Indonesia's capital city, outside of the usual 1-2 hours maintenance per month, the internet works just fine.
Beyond that, when we enter the realm of gaming, especially single player gaming, it begs the question of the second paragraph of this post, which is how does being always online improve my experience in single player gaming. Do I get new, particular experiences that I cannot get if I play offline? If not, we move to the next question, which is the other side of the first question, does being always online opens a possibility of negative experience in single player gaming. If the answer to the latter is a resounding yes, then by all means, being always online in single player gaming doesn't give any benefit but opens a possibility to a worse experience.
Now, we each have our own tolerance level toward displeasure and negative experience. Some can just shrug it off, return the game and continue with our life, maybe become wiser with each situation. Some may not have that luxury, especially if they are very much invested in particular games (by OP's term, being old man shouting at the cloud).
As for myself, I think this always online in single player game practice is more on the malevolent side of the equation. They can make it not mandatory, just like now Elden Ring use it (if you are online, you can get indirect interaction with other players), or DMC V (if you are online, and in some stages, you can semi coop with other players), or any other games that doesn't make the always online an intrusive obstacle. These games can still be updated, or patched, to ensure the bugs are squashed, no problem at all. Want to splurge your hard-earned dollar or rupiah for the developer because you love them, and you like that edgy overcoat skin for your devil hunter? alt tab your way to the store page and type your cc number. Then, after all this, what exclusive benefits does always online single player game can give to the user?
In a product, both as creator and user, we always look to enhance and improve the product, make it more user friendly, durable, cost optimized (see, I don't use the word cheap, because cheap has a negative connotation), purposeful (make it more fun, in gaming situation), and other positive outcomes. This is what generally regarded as good practice in product and business development.
Now, we look at the always online in game. In the first post, OP stated that OP's console is connected to the internet 24/7. This by itself is a simple practice. I live in Indonesia, we have an internet renaissance couple of years back, and now I can say in Jakarta, Indonesia's capital city, outside of the usual 1-2 hours maintenance per month, the internet works just fine.
Beyond that, when we enter the realm of gaming, especially single player gaming, it begs the question of the second paragraph of this post, which is how does being always online improve my experience in single player gaming. Do I get new, particular experiences that I cannot get if I play offline? If not, we move to the next question, which is the other side of the first question, does being always online opens a possibility of negative experience in single player gaming. If the answer to the latter is a resounding yes, then by all means, being always online in single player gaming doesn't give any benefit but opens a possibility to a worse experience.
Now, we each have our own tolerance level toward displeasure and negative experience. Some can just shrug it off, return the game and continue with our life, maybe become wiser with each situation. Some may not have that luxury, especially if they are very much invested in particular games (by OP's term, being old man shouting at the cloud).
As for myself, I think this always online in single player game practice is more on the malevolent side of the equation. They can make it not mandatory, just like now Elden Ring use it (if you are online, you can get indirect interaction with other players), or DMC V (if you are online, and in some stages, you can semi coop with other players), or any other games that doesn't make the always online an intrusive obstacle. These games can still be updated, or patched, to ensure the bugs are squashed, no problem at all. Want to splurge your hard-earned dollar or rupiah for the developer because you love them, and you like that edgy overcoat skin for your devil hunter? alt tab your way to the store page and type your cc number. Then, after all this, what exclusive benefits does always online single player game can give to the user?
Dr. Claus
Vincit qui se vincit
Yep. There is zero reason to defend always online, yet for some clowns they seemingly need to. Either they were dropped on their heads as kids or they are literal astroturfers.
YukiOnna
Member
Same reason why I'm against a move to a total digital future (or even digital showcases): You technically don't own it, you are reliant on the company to keep it running like a service, and my internet isn't consistent enough up here. Unfortunately, I don't live in Asia.
Not to mention, I'm not convinced devs that require always online for single player or solo are designing it with SP or Solo in mind.
Not to mention, I'm not convinced devs that require always online for single player or solo are designing it with SP or Solo in mind.
supernova8
Banned
Exactly. OP is defending it from the corporate perspective, but seriously why should we as consumers give a shit about them? They don't give a shit about us.
I don't blame companies for wanting to implement DRM and for wanting to kill off the used games market (they already succeeded in PC), but it doesn't mean I have to like it. At least with PC, we're generally getting dirt cheap prices for games thanks to Steam sales and EGS occasionally giving us awesome games for free (I'll never buy anything on their store but happy to take the free games lol) so it sort of mitigates the downside of not really physically owning your games.
With console, however, I have absolutely zero reason to believe that, say, Sony or Nintendo would suddenly lower the price of games if we went fully digital next-gen or the gen after. They would absolutely keep charging $60-$70 per title. Hell, they might even decide to charge more half way through the generation because hey we'd be fucked and a captive audience by then.
Last edited:
calistan
Member
The reasons given for forcing online components in singleplayer games have always been super shady.
Hitman
The reason: Permanent connection is required to "experience the full richness" of the game.
The reality: The game plays exactly the same offline, we just don't let you save your progress.
Crackdown 3
The reason: The "power of the cloud" will turn Xbox One into a physics processing supercomputer.
The reality: Marketing bullshit. The cloud mode never properly launches, and online or offline the game is a piece of crap.
Sim City
The reason: The cloud is required to process hundreds of thousands of Sims in a vast interconnected world.
The reality: Frequent server outages, dire reviews to the point where even Amazon pulls the game from sale. The eventual offline mode turns out to be identical.
Hitman
The reason: Permanent connection is required to "experience the full richness" of the game.
The reality: The game plays exactly the same offline, we just don't let you save your progress.
Crackdown 3
The reason: The "power of the cloud" will turn Xbox One into a physics processing supercomputer.
The reality: Marketing bullshit. The cloud mode never properly launches, and online or offline the game is a piece of crap.
Sim City
The reason: The cloud is required to process hundreds of thousands of Sims in a vast interconnected world.
The reality: Frequent server outages, dire reviews to the point where even Amazon pulls the game from sale. The eventual offline mode turns out to be identical.
Spaceman292
Banned
That 'power of the cloud' shit was hilarious. Did it ever actually exist? Was it all just a big gaslighting exercise?
01011001
Banned
not only was Crackdown 3 never announced to be always online, the cloud destruction concept also was only ever meant to be a thing in online PvP multiplayer and specifically not in singleplayer.
it was ultimately cancelled, most likely due to budget cuts for the game.
the final game also isn't always online. so why the hell you included this is beyond me.
also if the original PvP mode concept was actually implemented and used, it would have needed the cloud servers to calculate the physics which means this wouldn't even be marketing bullshit in the slightest, it was just never actually used in the final game.
Last edited:
calistan
Member
I included it because it's a notoriously bullshitty reason given for forcing an online component in a game. It couldn't possibly have worked. I did mention that the cloud mode never launched.
Did you work on it? Sorry to offend you if you did, but the game was a monstrous turd.
01011001
Banned
that still makes no sense as this was a multiplayer VS mode they worked on. by that logic Halo 3 has a bullshit reason to be online because it has Online multiplayer... this mode in Crackdown 3 was simply the multiplayer mode like any other multiplayer mode in any other game.
it also worked, it was just never finished to be a fully fledged multiplayer mode. would most likely have killed the budget for what was clearly a low budget game. + the servers that basically need to run extremely taxing physics calculations would have not been worth the upkeep costs.
not relevant to the conversation, seems like your pussy has a bit of sand in it if you react like that to someone who points out that you included an example that makes no sense to be named in this topic as the game wasn't always online and never was planned to be always online.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
We don't like it because for decades, you could buy a game for $60-80 and it literally never stops working no matter how long it sits in a box. If I buy something, I want to have the option to retain use of it, sell it, or give it away. Today, next week, or in ten years. It's also an unnecessary hassle that only affects legitimate paying customers. I can tell you if they did away with all this DRM and online crap I would buy more games, at or close to full price. I'm just not going to pay that to be their bitch, I'll wait until the price goes down.
Back when Mattrick was talking about Xbox One. He said there would be an offline option for solders and people with no Internet. He later updated that to "Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called Xbox 360".
There are infinite possibilities for this policy to create a headache for the real customer, and absolutely no benefit to anybody, including the publisher. So, that's why people are antagonistic towards it. I still use my SNES and N64 games, and have the option to sell them or give them away if I wish, you think that would be the case if they had some sort of phone home DRM shit 30 years ago? This is why today I have no issue going out and buying a real ass cart on Switch day one if the actual game is on point.
I have no sensitivity to it though for online multiplayer focused games, that would be silly. I will say I'm glad I bought my Overwatch "license" for only $15, because eventually they removed the game and replaced it with Overwatch 2, a new title which requires my phone number and completely replaced the game I bought. I still have the box to the PC version of the game, even though it no longer exists lmao. I know what I'm getting into with this stuff though and wouldn't have paid $60 for a GAAS title at high risk of being a temporary license to play and nothing else. All games that require online checks are guaranteed temporary licenses.
Back when Mattrick was talking about Xbox One. He said there would be an offline option for solders and people with no Internet. He later updated that to "Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called Xbox 360".
There are infinite possibilities for this policy to create a headache for the real customer, and absolutely no benefit to anybody, including the publisher. So, that's why people are antagonistic towards it. I still use my SNES and N64 games, and have the option to sell them or give them away if I wish, you think that would be the case if they had some sort of phone home DRM shit 30 years ago? This is why today I have no issue going out and buying a real ass cart on Switch day one if the actual game is on point.
I have no sensitivity to it though for online multiplayer focused games, that would be silly. I will say I'm glad I bought my Overwatch "license" for only $15, because eventually they removed the game and replaced it with Overwatch 2, a new title which requires my phone number and completely replaced the game I bought. I still have the box to the PC version of the game, even though it no longer exists lmao. I know what I'm getting into with this stuff though and wouldn't have paid $60 for a GAAS title at high risk of being a temporary license to play and nothing else. All games that require online checks are guaranteed temporary licenses.
Puscifer
Member
Going to add something to this that maybe I'm just crazy but I feel like if you own a console you'd be silly to go all in on digital. PC is the only platform that makes sense since theres always workarounds and consoles are just ridiculously locked down to the point it's honestly a detriment to your collection, disc rot be damned. The only way to make digital on a console worth it is if the console is hacked open like the PS3 or DS so you can back them up and restore them away from the drm of the console itself
Last edited:
Only took one post to completely shit on OP's ignorance.
I hope he "better understands" now. Unless he's in this thread somewhere still trying to put up a fight in favor of always online.
Edit: Alright gramps. Time to go to bed. You've argued enough for today.
Last edited:
Ainem Enamas
Member
Don't rely on your internet connection because God.
Holdfing
Member
Diablo 3 at launch, Assassin's Creed 2 at launch (to a lesser extent), most recently GTA 5 (Rockstar servers didn't like my ISP or something). My internet connection was flawless in all cases. I don't trust devs/publishers with always online, and I don't see the reason why I have to ask permission from some computer on the internet to play a single player game I paid a lot of money for.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
I was following the Simcity incident in real-time. Someone looked into the code and realised the online requirement was literally just a single yes/no tag in the software. As in the online connection did NOTHING, not even for a leader board. All it does is kicking people off the game if they are not online.
The franchise died with that title. All the legacy of the original Simcity died with it.
Last edited:
gradient
Resident Cheap Arse
When I buy a game, I'm buying a game, not renting it.
With always online you no longer own your game because you no longer have any control over how long, when or even if you'll be able to play it. You are in effect paying to play something that can be taken away from you at any time. Your access can be removed for any arbitrary reason the publisher sees fit and the game you thought you had can be modified, be functionally reduced, and be censored without your consent effectively removing what you originally bought into.
Social standards change and something becomes unacceptable in the game? - now censored and you can't play it as was.
Subject matter of the game now deemed "problematic" or called to be banned by left of right wing nuts pushing their own ideology? - now the game is gone.
Game no longer profitable enough and requires "support" from the community in the form of MTX or subscription access? - you're now back behind a pay wall
Game no longer generating "enough" profit? - gone, servers shut down.
Game getting a new "remastered" version that the publisher wants you to pay for? - your copy is now gone. Servers closed due to not being "viable"
Publisher no longer in a good financial state or going bankrupt? - gone, your game's owner is no longer around to let you play it.
Publisher going bankrupt so another has bought the rights? - enjoy a new pay gate to access it or accept having to pay for it all over again on their branded service.
Get identified playing in a manner that is deemed "problematic" or not in the way the publisher deems "right"? - your access is now gone
Say something "socially unacceptable" on social media or outside of the game sphere that can be traced back to you - your game and access is now gone. Give it time. We're getting there.
I go back to games I enjoy. I complete A Link to the Past and Super Mario World at least once a year, from their original cartridges. It costs me nothing because I own them and as my property the publisher has no say in whether or not I can continue to play them
I regularly play games on last gen systems. The 3DS, the Wii U and I can do so because I own them. But they're "last gen" which an unscrupulous publisher (and they're all unscrupulous) could easily deem as out of date and not worth keeping online so I'd lose access.
I'm just starting out playing some games that released in the past 5 years because my backlog is huge and as an adult I just don't have the time to spend hours each day so it takes me a while. I own them though so there is no time limit or use by date on them. With always online there is - you're agreeing to a use by date on something that simply should not expire.
I can take advantage of deep pricing discounts on older titles because I can just pop them in an play when I buy them. Always online allows publishers to set time limits on the shelf-life of games which in turn allows them to keep prices high for the limited life they define for the title, creating additional FOMO on titles that are getting close to their publisher mandated expiry and thus costing the consumer more and forcing them to give up some of their power as a consumer.
There is no benefit to always online. It's a trap. The thin end of the wedge and a means of removing your ownership of the product so you have to keep paying them indefinitely.
With always online you no longer own your game because you no longer have any control over how long, when or even if you'll be able to play it. You are in effect paying to play something that can be taken away from you at any time. Your access can be removed for any arbitrary reason the publisher sees fit and the game you thought you had can be modified, be functionally reduced, and be censored without your consent effectively removing what you originally bought into.
Social standards change and something becomes unacceptable in the game? - now censored and you can't play it as was.
Subject matter of the game now deemed "problematic" or called to be banned by left of right wing nuts pushing their own ideology? - now the game is gone.
Game no longer profitable enough and requires "support" from the community in the form of MTX or subscription access? - you're now back behind a pay wall
Game no longer generating "enough" profit? - gone, servers shut down.
Game getting a new "remastered" version that the publisher wants you to pay for? - your copy is now gone. Servers closed due to not being "viable"
Publisher no longer in a good financial state or going bankrupt? - gone, your game's owner is no longer around to let you play it.
Publisher going bankrupt so another has bought the rights? - enjoy a new pay gate to access it or accept having to pay for it all over again on their branded service.
Get identified playing in a manner that is deemed "problematic" or not in the way the publisher deems "right"? - your access is now gone
Say something "socially unacceptable" on social media or outside of the game sphere that can be traced back to you - your game and access is now gone. Give it time. We're getting there.
I go back to games I enjoy. I complete A Link to the Past and Super Mario World at least once a year, from their original cartridges. It costs me nothing because I own them and as my property the publisher has no say in whether or not I can continue to play them
I regularly play games on last gen systems. The 3DS, the Wii U and I can do so because I own them. But they're "last gen" which an unscrupulous publisher (and they're all unscrupulous) could easily deem as out of date and not worth keeping online so I'd lose access.
I'm just starting out playing some games that released in the past 5 years because my backlog is huge and as an adult I just don't have the time to spend hours each day so it takes me a while. I own them though so there is no time limit or use by date on them. With always online there is - you're agreeing to a use by date on something that simply should not expire.
I can take advantage of deep pricing discounts on older titles because I can just pop them in an play when I buy them. Always online allows publishers to set time limits on the shelf-life of games which in turn allows them to keep prices high for the limited life they define for the title, creating additional FOMO on titles that are getting close to their publisher mandated expiry and thus costing the consumer more and forcing them to give up some of their power as a consumer.
There is no benefit to always online. It's a trap. The thin end of the wedge and a means of removing your ownership of the product so you have to keep paying them indefinitely.
Last edited:
Gaelyon
Gold Member
I'm ok with internet required for SP only when it's clearly stated, add functionality and is an option
Best exemple : Dark Souls games/Elden Ring. You choose to activate online mode. You get additional features by doing this (pvp, coop, messages) but it's still optionnal and can be toggle at will. You can still play all the game by yourself offline. The day tjhe servers are gone you could still enjoy the SP experience.
Best exemple : Dark Souls games/Elden Ring. You choose to activate online mode. You get additional features by doing this (pvp, coop, messages) but it's still optionnal and can be toggle at will. You can still play all the game by yourself offline. The day tjhe servers are gone you could still enjoy the SP experience.
01011001
Banned
"internet required" and "is an option" are mutually exclusive
Laptop1991
Member
I've never liked MP games anyway, i'm a SP gamer, and an always online connection should not be required for SP games, for various reason's, being able to play the game you paid for when you want and even if it's not supported anymore and for gamer's who don't have stable internet, but the real reason is the MTX stores, it's the money, the industry wants you to buy all the extra stuff they sell, and they can't do that if your offline. online for mutli player, should be a choice for single player.
Gaelyon
Gold Member
I know it was kind of ironic but I should be clearer. The only internet required on SP games I'm ok with is optional one à la Dark Souls.
Vick
Member
Man, Gold was not necessary at all.
Superkewl
Member
Then don't buy it. It is a simple as that. If there are enough of you that feel the same way who withheld their purchases, then surely the industry will have no choice but to take notice and change their business practices. Also, I don't think I have seen a single person here that said they don't care about always online "tell" you or anyone that you must enjoy it, opposed to pretty much all of the so-called anti-online people attempting to attack or bully those who don't agree with them.
Just some food for thought.
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
No matter how good your internet is, once the servers are shutdown, you lost your game forever.
BlackTron
Member
Agree, this is why Xbox is actually kinda nice for Gamepass and extremely cheap games on sale. If they want me to trade ownership for convenience, that works when we are talking $10 to play a game right now without moving from the couch. This idea of paying full on $60-80 for a digital new game on a console makes me nauseous.
Hypereides
Member
I'm guessing the latter. I refuse to believe there are genuinely people like OP in the gaming community who actively fight against their own interests and rights. I simply refuse.
Even using the word "antagonism" for this is baffling. It almost sounds like its framed in a negative context.
Last edited:
01011001
Banned
there are poor people who vote for political parties that only care about the interests of the rich...
so this isn't as far fetched as you might think
MacReady13
Member
Was there not a thread in Gaming complaining about some of us who don't like gaming today? I think this is a fairly good reason as to why gaming is fucked today. And it only gets worse once you subscribe to game pass and the like as you truly never own anything. It's all a fucking mess...
Havoc2049
Member
If you think there is a choice, you are lying to yourself.
BlackTron
Member
Modern society is being built on the pillar of giving all your shit and dignity away while cheering.
BlackTron
Member
If you think there is a choice, you are lying to yourself.
Whether there is a real choice or a perceived one, they are still making an active choice against their own interests and his point stands.