This.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Always online DRM or no game at all?
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
This.
Pinko Marx
Banned
I will never support always online DRM. There is no game I need to play that badly.
Xbudz
Member
No game at all. Let's see how well the industry does with this concept.
grimshawish
Banned
Just do it fucking well. Servers failing is shitty terrible service.
Its turning up at the hotel and finding your room booked.
Its turning up at the hotel and finding your room booked.
It's not about 'fear of change'.
It's that we don't want artificial usage restrictions and outside dependencies placed on the things we buy for no good reason.
Why should my singleplayer game - which doesn't use the internet for anything - require an active internet connection to function? Now if there's a bad storm or my ISP's down for maintenance, suddenly I can't play that game. It's unnecessary, it's inconvenient, and it only really affects the legit purchasers of games because pirates just end up hacking the DRM out anyway.
jim-jam bongs
Member
No game at all. It's not like I don't have a bajillion other games I can play instead, why waste my time and own myself by supporting practices with which I object?
Hellsing321
Member
I'll take no game at all. Its not like I'm starved for games to play. If the industry crashed tomorrow and no new games were ever made again, I'd still have an embarrassment of riches to play.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
While I find always online DRM to be premature for the current stage, there's no denial that some people are angry because this system pretty much kill off piracy, thus making them unable to play games for free.
The only answer.
I agree.
the_prime_mover
Member
There are plenty of other ways for me to spend my time and consequently, my money. I can not think of any reason why i would, as a gamer, want to support such limitations when looking for a single player experience. Hell, I am pissed that offline MP is pretty much non-existant.
THESE ARE THE ONLY CHOICES
Actually, the answer is "no game at all", because in both cases lots of people don't get to play the game, but in one case the money gets to stay in the consumer's pocket.
GoddyofAus
Banned
After what happened with D3, I'd rather cut my own dick off and feed it to my dogs then buy any game that bears always online DRM.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Or shit is totally broken and doesn't work for legit paying customers......
Another problem is a lot of these always online games tend to go with a publisher's own servers versus one giant platform holder handling it, and I think that's part of why it's been so spotty. If Tomb Raider actually did require online connectivity, even throughout, it'd have gone WAY smoother I imagine than Sim City, and that's from a company with a down period of a month and long maintenance periods during the day. But even that would probably have trouble, so it's just not acceptable currently regardless of your view on consumer rights: they can't fucking do it smoothly, and thus are fundamentally broken. Maybe just at launch, but that's when you're most eager to play the game, and it happens EVERY TIME as noted.
jim-jam bongs
Member
This is a terrible post and you should feel bad.
I bought Chrono Trigger for Android blindly then only discovered in retrospect that it requires an internet connection at launch as well as downloading game files at various points, so while it's not "always online" DRM it functions in much the same way. I love going into a reception blackspot and not being able to launch a 20 year old game I paid around $10 for.
The point is that things break. There are a lot of reasons you might lose internet access even if you live in a highly populated suburban area, stop being so absurdly myopic.
the_prime_mover
Member
Are you talking about this forum or about a broader base of people? The people I hear complaining seem to all be legitimate consumers, though I can't say I know anybody who is downloading unpurchased software. Has AO-DRM even hindered piracy? Nevermind that I imagine software copyright infringers to be fickle and just go after whatever it is they can get and not bother being overly vocal about a few games that haven't been cracked.
In the longterm the "buy the DRM game" choice is also the "buy no game at all" choice because we can't expect these companies to keep their servers up and so far companies have had no interest in releasing their server software so that people can run independent servers.
Edit: How many years until no one will be able to play SimCity (2013) ever again? 20? 10? 5?
Edit: How many years until no one will be able to play SimCity (2013) ever again? 20? 10? 5?
Actually, I wonder how many would cave at a lower price? I did for Diablo III, but 1. Holy crap $10, 2. it's a predominately multiplayer game anyway, and 3. Blizzard's reasonably trustworthy for keeping this stuff up for the long haul. I don't trust EA for that, and SimCity isn't a game I was eager to play with others (plus it seems to be purely asynchronous stuff that SHOULDN'T require always online) so I'll just boot up SimCity 4 (finally) if I want to scratch that itch.
I have a feeling this probably won't reliably catch on however until there's a few tentpole companies to rely on like Valve, Sony, Microsoft, or maybe even Nintendo to do verification and server stuff with. Running those servers must be expensive, and in the long run doesn't justify the hassle, it's likely another reason Ubisoft lightened up there.
I have a feeling this probably won't reliably catch on however until there's a few tentpole companies to rely on like Valve, Sony, Microsoft, or maybe even Nintendo to do verification and server stuff with. Running those servers must be expensive, and in the long run doesn't justify the hassle, it's likely another reason Ubisoft lightened up there.
Glass Rebel
Member
No game at all.
I think I'm already putting up with a lot of bullshit and giving up rights to play the games I paid for and this is just too much for me. I put up with the arbitrary restrictions Steam has because I enjoy the perks buying a game there brings with it and Valve knows this.
I see no value in mandatory online connectivity.
I think I'm already putting up with a lot of bullshit and giving up rights to play the games I paid for and this is just too much for me. I put up with the arbitrary restrictions Steam has because I enjoy the perks buying a game there brings with it and Valve knows this.
I see no value in mandatory online connectivity.
It's not even about whether you always have internet access, as the Sim City situation shows. Even if your connection is uninterrupted on your end, a problem on the authentication servers can keep you from playing your single-player game.
jim-jam bongs
Member
It depends on their monetisation strategy. If they want to force people to buy SimCity 2014 it could be a lot sooner than that.
StoppedInTracks
Member
No game at all.
That's why I was ecstatic when they announced Diablo 3 for PS3.
That's why I was ecstatic when they announced Diablo 3 for PS3.
2. EA will release SimCity 2014, then shut down the old server to get people to upgrade.
I would rather have no game at all. As people can clearly see by the Sim City example, having the DRM will not allow people who bought the game on Day 1 for $60+ play their single player games if the servers are down. People should have protested this feature with their wallets. EA is like any other business, once they see that the consumers are not purchasing a game with this feature, they will hopefully remove it in order to make a profit on their games.
fastford58
Member
Online only DRM for single player is a no go for me. I will not support it.
That includes games and hardware bound online DRMs (looking at you MS).
That includes games and hardware bound online DRMs (looking at you MS).
It pretty much kills off piracy?
It's the future... and I can understand that companies wants to protect their property from piracy with some sort of DRM.
It's a bit annoying at times, but I'm going along with it. I still think it's a bit ridiculous that people have to suffer from server maintenance when playing a singleplayer game. It just doesn't make sense.
It's a bit annoying at times, but I'm going along with it. I still think it's a bit ridiculous that people have to suffer from server maintenance when playing a singleplayer game. It just doesn't make sense.
It goes something like this in my head:
game with no DRM > no game at all > game with always-online DRM
No game at all means I have some cash that I can spend on something that does not cause hours and hours of frustration with the possibility of a mediocre experience.
game with no DRM > no game at all > game with always-online DRM
No game at all means I have some cash that I can spend on something that does not cause hours and hours of frustration with the possibility of a mediocre experience.
ramoisdead
Member
I prefer no game at all. I wouldn't mind always online if I had a fast, stable online connection but since I have crappy ass Time Warner with its slow, unstable connection, I rather just not play the game until the publisher takes that particular DRM out of their game in the future.
CornBurrito
Member
I'd rather not play a game that forces me to always be online for a single player campaign.
Bullshit.
You're really going to take the anger of people who paid for the game and can't play it, and write that off as "pirates just wanna pirate so they're mad?"
Fuck off.
Glass Rebel
Member
It depends on how the game is set up. Afaik, Diablo III does many if not all calculations server-side so unless someone reverse-engineers that, there's no way around it.
MarshallVaako
Member
No game at all...
Which I have put into practice by only playing mmorpgs and games I purchase on GOG.
Which I have put into practice by only playing mmorpgs and games I purchase on GOG.
SolidSnakex
Member
It's only the future if you actually accept it. A company like CD Projekt is much smaller than EA but they seem to do everything they can not to annoy consumers after they purchase a game.
One day it's all going to become a service like TV with pay channels & free to play ad supported games.
& we will lose the war because the new generation will not think much of the owning the product side of things.
& all the games that you buy will be snatched away the second you die & it goes into the system nothing to pass along to your kids because they will not have the rights to it.
Depressing isn't?
& we will lose the war because the new generation will not think much of the owning the product side of things.
& all the games that you buy will be snatched away the second you die & it goes into the system nothing to pass along to your kids because they will not have the rights to it.
Depressing isn't?
Uh, haven't pirates successfully cracked Always-Online DRM games?
.
Remember the fucking online aspect is tied to the game, giving it an actual BRIEF shelf life. :\
I'd LIKE to have my games playable a decade from now.
