-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Always online DRM or no game at all?
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
jetsetfluken
Member
No, but why would that happen in a console game? Just think of PSN or XBLA currently. Able to stay connected with super low signal or speed while your SP games run fine and no different than if you had the best connection in the world. Online MP would be a lagfest regardless if online only was I place if you have a bad signal/connection.
Also, again I haven't played D3, but why lag in a solo game if in a bad connection? The game isn't streaming, it's installed (or is it?). The lite "online features" like microtransactions and such I can't imagine bogging down performance.
OrlanisWorks
Banned
It's a win/win, one way or another.
No DRM: I get to play the game.
DRM: I won't play the game, so I'll dedicate the time, I'm not spending on the game, on a different hobby.
I'd prefer to miss out then to support such a crippling system. I'm not gonna eat that delicious turkey sandwich because you just spit in it.
No DRM: I get to play the game.
DRM: I won't play the game, so I'll dedicate the time, I'm not spending on the game, on a different hobby.
I'd prefer to miss out then to support such a crippling system. I'm not gonna eat that delicious turkey sandwich because you just spit in it.
If games go online-only, I'm out. I love this hobby, but I have others that could quickly take its place.
The game runs certain components (like quests and enemy AI) on the server, in order to prevent piracy. In its current state, the game can't be pirated until someone makes a third party hacked server. The downside is that you need to connect to a server for computational purposes, and this is where the lag comes from.
The game runs certain components (like quests and enemy AI) on the server, in order to prevent piracy. In its current state, the game can't be pirated until someone makes a third party hacked server. The downside is that you need to connect to a server for computational purposes, and this is where the lag comes from.
Because I live in Brazil and regardless of how fast my connection may be I'll still be affected by latency because those hypothetical servers would probably be hosted in the US/Europe.
Substandard
Member
I have mixed feelings on this. Most of the PC games I've been playing recently are "always online" but I'm not sure that it's really DRM in most cases, it's kind of core to the experience with most of them.
I've put a ton of hours the last few months into DOTA 2 and Path of Exile, and they both have no offline mode. You could certainly argue that PoE could easily have a single player mode since it is a diablo clone, but it's built from the ground up being online with other people in town hubs / global chat / etc.
They are also F2P games and not necessarily $60 retail products, and I didn't buy Sim City in large part due to the weird always on requirement.
I've put a ton of hours the last few months into DOTA 2 and Path of Exile, and they both have no offline mode. You could certainly argue that PoE could easily have a single player mode since it is a diablo clone, but it's built from the ground up being online with other people in town hubs / global chat / etc.
They are also F2P games and not necessarily $60 retail products, and I didn't buy Sim City in large part due to the weird always on requirement.
thesuperfunk
Member
Avoid it like the fucking plague. Not down with this always online shit!
There's always having your console online, then there's depending on it to actually stay online throughout whatever hiccups your provider, their servers, or just the lines connecting to your home have. Nevermind the server outages for maintenance.
saucyrobot
Neo Member
All of the games in recent memory that have used this always-on DRM bullshit have been complete and total disasters at launch. You would think developers would be shying away from this sort of thing.
The worst part is that they try to sell the idea that always being online is somehow crucial to the design or enjoyment of the game. No, it fucking isn't. There is no scenario where being able to have a personal, offline experience with a game could negatively impact the experience.
The worst part is that they try to sell the idea that always being online is somehow crucial to the design or enjoyment of the game. No, it fucking isn't. There is no scenario where being able to have a personal, offline experience with a game could negatively impact the experience.
ElRenoRaven
Member
If I have to choose then I choose no game at all. It's really that simple. I refuse to support a game that should not have always online DRM. Now if a game is designed for it like say any MMO type game then cool. However if it's a game that has a single player and you have to be online to play it then it can go straight to hell. I don't care if that means the game doesn't get made. So be it.
I refuse to buy a single player game crippled by always-online DRM.
I have played and loved all previous Diablo and SimCity games, but won't touch Diablo 3 or SimCity until this DRM is removed.
There are way too many other games I can invest my time in, safe in the knowledge they will never be unavailable, or have their servers shut off, or delete my progress due to a network hiccup.
Games that actually require online to play, where it isn't just a cheap fuck you to consumers, like MMOs or LOMAs? No problem.
I have played and loved all previous Diablo and SimCity games, but won't touch Diablo 3 or SimCity until this DRM is removed.
There are way too many other games I can invest my time in, safe in the knowledge they will never be unavailable, or have their servers shut off, or delete my progress due to a network hiccup.
Games that actually require online to play, where it isn't just a cheap fuck you to consumers, like MMOs or LOMAs? No problem.
SteveWinwood
Member
In your silly either/or and nothing else situation, for both Diablo 3 and SimCity I can say vehemently I would have preferred no game at all.
Portugeezer
Member
Who are you kidding?
Pretty much this.
Not buying.
Despite all the problems already mentioned, it's because I don't trust these companies' policies for account security and restoration.
Accounts should be hard to steal, hard to hack, and easy to get back to their rightful owners if they are. Ubisoft, for one, makes their accounts easy as shit to hack, and then want you to sit on a non-toll free long distance call to talk to a call centre stooge who may or may not understand what's going on and give you back your account.
Despite all the problems already mentioned, it's because I don't trust these companies' policies for account security and restoration.
Accounts should be hard to steal, hard to hack, and easy to get back to their rightful owners if they are. Ubisoft, for one, makes their accounts easy as shit to hack, and then want you to sit on a non-toll free long distance call to talk to a call centre stooge who may or may not understand what's going on and give you back your account.
SteveWinwood
Member
It's one of the top sellers on gog so you're not the only one.
KojiKnight
Member
If it's a game I really want and the company has a history of fixing it's servers errors (zero day server problems are forgivable if frustrating) then I'll buy it. But if it's always on DRM and I was on the fence for the project? Meh, plenty of other games to play.
jetsetfluken
Member
But the game wouldn't run on servers. Only Live/PSN of course. But that doesn't affect what is in your single player game. This isn't a Diablo 3 situation.
Unknown One
Member
For publishers: To alienate your bases or to not to?
To make their playing experience a pain in the ass or to not to?
To release a game with no always online and get some money or to outright cancel it?
They are not getting any of my money doing these anti-consumer bs.
To make their playing experience a pain in the ass or to not to?
To release a game with no always online and get some money or to outright cancel it?
They are not getting any of my money doing these anti-consumer bs.
Always-online is a tradeoff. I need to be getting something in return (F2P, massive coop gameplay, PVP-centric, so on) or I'm out.
This breaks SimCity (the new elements are unappealing) and Diablo 3 (I'm not "getting" an extra mode compared to D2, I'm just losing everything but ladder).
This breaks SimCity (the new elements are unappealing) and Diablo 3 (I'm not "getting" an extra mode compared to D2, I'm just losing everything but ladder).
To be honest, I have no problem with "always online" as long as the game is treated the same way as an MMO. Such as not paying one set price but rather small monthly payments, servers which can withstand large amounts of traffic, regular matienence and content updates which do not make the game go offline, good integrated social features. No one complains about how MMOs work because they well, work. Always online games are basically positioning themselves to work the same way as an MMO, except with none of the things I listed above. And it extremely irks me that its in SimCity because it's one of the most classic examples of a deeply enriching single player game. It's really a large "fuck you" to the history of the franchise.
I'll admittedly still buy if it's way, WAY cheaper, like $10 or $5, but that's not really sustainable for games of the sizes that they'll want to lock down, and for something like BC:R2 I still wait on a sale anyway (see the $5 comment.) So unless they can figure out how to make it work at $10, maybe $20 OR they figure out how to make it actually work out to be essential to gamplay (Dark Souls is PRETTY CLOSE) they're not getting sales from me for this.
Version 3.0
Member
No game at all. I have 1200 offline games to play, and nearly limitless others to choose from, most of them quite cheap. I'm set for life. I will never buy an always-online DRM game (again - got caught by surprise with Bionic Commando Re-armed 2).
Admittedly BC:R2 was only on start up, and I don't think Capcom did it since then so I was more willing once it went on sale at $5, but it's still not something I'd want if it can be avoided. It's an issue with GFWL actually, at least for most games with it far as I can tell, you can't just sign in for local play far as I know, though you can pull the plug afterwards.
old manatee
Banned
I think everyone calling bullshit on Sim City are totally justified. Setting aside the downtime, EA has been really aggressive in the past few years about shutting down servers for games that are even only a year old.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Looks at every Diablo 3 owner.
GameSeeker
Member
If a game has always online DRM, I won't buy it until it gets removed. Even if I have to wait 20 years for the game to show up on GOG.com
Run.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Those games are the dog wagging the tail, not the tail itself and you know it.
FieryBalrog
Member
would rather have game
online is annoying, but i really don't care that much. Probably will buy Simcity based on how much Idle Thumbs seems to love it.
Well, I've skipped games (Bionic Commando Rearmed 2, for instance) for stupid DRM. It's an offline game that shouldn't require an internet connection to launch, so I didn't buy it.
I'm not going to quit gaming if all games start requiring it, though.It's crap but I'd learn to live with it.
I'm not going to quit gaming if all games start requiring it, though.It's crap but I'd learn to live with it.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Cancer is the best. Look at the Make a Wish Foundation. Being healthy is no fun.
I would rather have a game, of course. But, in the end, there's always option C. I still have the option of playing games without that style of DRM.
Is always-online DRM a complete deal breaker? No. If Dark Souls 2 comes out with always online DRM I will still buy it day 1. Is it a negative? Absolutely.
Is always-online DRM a complete deal breaker? No. If Dark Souls 2 comes out with always online DRM I will still buy it day 1. Is it a negative? Absolutely.
My biggest issue with always online is when THEY fuck up.
I'm almost always online anyway.
I like Microsoft and Sony's current solutions on their respective consoles.
I'd rather that gets stuck to.
But in the Diablo 3, Sim City situation, it wouldn't be so bad if the servers were actually reliable.
I'm almost always online anyway.
I like Microsoft and Sony's current solutions on their respective consoles.
I'd rather that gets stuck to.
But in the Diablo 3, Sim City situation, it wouldn't be so bad if the servers were actually reliable.
yellow submarine
Member
I'd go with No game.
I've been voting with my feet on this principle. Probably doesn't dent sales numbers for them, but I get to watch shit launches and pity the fools. And also feel bad for gaming as a hobby.
And also feel bad from a developer perspective, because in 2013, it's not an unsolved problem to design a scalable system that doesn't shit it's pants when you get 100x load. A scalable approach will cost you time/dev costs, but you're not inventing load balancing algorithms like back in 2003. I understand that there's always a business trade-off made, but I don't support the reason of: "fuck 'em, they can log in 3 months after launch and we will save 2 months of dev work".
Really dude?
Nostalgic Nightmare
Member
So what will you and your wonderful internet connection do when company X decides its not financially responsible to support its backend infrastructure?
wyvern_bloodfist
Member
I agree.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Yes. Really. Those kids have had it too good for too long.