I made the mistake of supporting Diablo III thinking Blizzard could make it work. They failed. Unless they have a track record of superb "always online" support, I'm not going to bother purchasing their games. It always helps if "always online" makes sense for that game, which neither Diablo III or Sim City has proven is needed.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Always online DRM or no game at all?
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
This sums it up, for me. Always-online DRM is anti-consumer, holds 0 benefit for the end user, and is simply another way for publishers to exert undue control of the product past the point of sale.
Buying a game with this scheme enabled is like buying a time bomb. The disc or download will be rendered worthless the moment the publisher stops supporting it.
sublimit
Banned
I think they will find an excuse to implement some lame online system in the SP game and tell you "well we felt that this is the proper way to play the game so we need you to always be online."
I'm sure many publishers loved the potential for profit they saw in games like Demon's Souls with what it brought for online SP campaigns.However unlike the Souls games, i expect that 80% of those online systems will be nothing more than tacked on excuses for always be online.
And people will then accept it as the way forward for SP games.
No game at all for me, thanks.
Always online is fine only for online only games. Single player games? No. I love Diablo 3, but its always online aspect is the worst part of the experience and something that assures I won't buy always online stuff unless it's a MMO.
Nephitamine
Member
The only always online DRM game I've bought was Diablo 3. Never again will I buy another one. I was going to buy Sim City later in the week and convince my girlfriend to play it with me, but now that I found out it's always online, I'm going to pass on it.
I can't find it in me to be bothered by always online DRM. I play games on a computer thats always hooked up to a modem and live in an area of the country with reliable fast internet. Sure there tends to be them first few days blues with server meltdowns but I've been a MMO player long enough that I dont get worked up about it.
No game at all. Not even close.
I am one of those people who want to be able to play my single player game when ever I want and don't want to depend on my connection or their servers working to be able to do it. I also like to pop in old games and play them as well. That is my biggest worry. Yeah sure online only might work right now, but what if I want to play that game in 5/10/20 years I doubt the servers will still be up for 99 percent of games after a few years forget about after a decade or two.
I am one of those people who want to be able to play my single player game when ever I want and don't want to depend on my connection or their servers working to be able to do it. I also like to pop in old games and play them as well. That is my biggest worry. Yeah sure online only might work right now, but what if I want to play that game in 5/10/20 years I doubt the servers will still be up for 99 percent of games after a few years forget about after a decade or two.
Glorified G
Member
If Sony didn't give any notice about the DRM, that's bullshit. I would have never buy anything digital from Sony again if that happened to me.
To you perhaps, but brand loyalty has no bounds. I have a feeling they'll get away with it.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
I didn't refer to the people who bought and can't play, but the annoying people who says SimCity is a bad game just because it's DRM.
Yes, what's happening with SimCity's DRM system sucks, but it's quite obvious some people are angry because they can't pirate it so easily, not because they can't play what they bought and are absolutely right to complain. And NOT, I'm not refering myself to anyone from this board, so don't jump into conclusions.
Then stop bringing up this lame argument when there at paying customers with legit complaints. It's insulting to the people with real problems. Saying things like 'quite obvious' when you have no proof at all is also an incredible load of bullshit. Don't make stupid assumptions, especially in defense of poor practices like this.
I do feel gamer around the world need to stand up for what they want and stop with the 'I don't like it but I deal with it' as that will only make it worse. It's pretty obvious that stuff like this and other anti consumer things like microtransactions and most dlc is only the beginning and publishers will think of way worse stuff in order to get the most out of us gamers.
Lysander91
Banned
I don't mind always online DRM if it works. When I'm playing Diablo 3 and it lags in single player months after launch while i'm getting over 30fps, that's not cool.
Yep. I thought, "How bad could it be?" and just bought it, but the funny thing is that in the long run, it wasn't TERRIBLE, just really annoying, and I decided I wasn't willing to put up with it for any new games.
I'm not saying that nothing could change my mind, but I won't be taking any chances on anything new with this type of DRM from now on. It would have to be something that had been out for a while and didn't have a lot of negative word of mouth about it.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
actually no. I only turn my consoles connection when I actually want to buy something, or I want to play online.
No game for me. Plently games out there, enough that I cannot play in one lifetime, that dont support this foolishness.
Same goes to full priced games built around microtransations too. Piss off with that shit.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Man, you seems to have really serious interpretation issues because I made clear above I wasn't refering to the people who bought the game and can't play it but for people who's saying SimCity is a bad game just because of the DRM issues and I never said I support this business practice, so go throw your anger into someone else and pay more attention to what people write.
And please, back off with your "you have no proof" for people downloading cracked games because it's free, saying that such thing don't exist is laughable. TO MAKE CLEAR AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE GAME AND CAN'T PLAY IT ARE AMONG THESE, GOT IT?
Same here, since Diablo III I'm not buying any ''always online'' games which I plan to play on my own anymore.
specialguy
Banned
I'm for more always online DRM if it gets some semblance of PC's heyday back (back when I was growing up, stuff like Baldurs Gate, Ultima VI, Half Life, Unreal Tournament)
If they can figure out a way to make even single player games always online so that we get more of them on PC, I'm for it for sure.
If they can figure out a way to make even single player games always online so that we get more of them on PC, I'm for it for sure.
If it wasn't a form of DRM, they would let us host our own servers.
I'd never ever buy a game with always online DRM. For me, it's the line in the sand that I just won't cross. The gaming landscape this gen has already been bad enough with overpriced day 1 DLC, locked on-disc content, etc etc. but AO DRM is the ultimate insult to gamers.
I'd been anticipating Diablo 3 for roughly 10 years and as soon as I found out about the DRM, I walked away from the notion of purchasing it with barely a second though. If the PS3/PS4 version avoids the same mistakes, I may yet give it a look. But if it doesn't, I really won't be worried about missing out and I could say that about ANY game series, regardless of how much I love/loved it.
I'd been anticipating Diablo 3 for roughly 10 years and as soon as I found out about the DRM, I walked away from the notion of purchasing it with barely a second though. If the PS3/PS4 version avoids the same mistakes, I may yet give it a look. But if it doesn't, I really won't be worried about missing out and I could say that about ANY game series, regardless of how much I love/loved it.
But if you would and enough people would do the same there wouldn't be any always on drm anymore.
Snapshot King
Member
Exactly what happened to me. I get like 120ms of lag despite having the fatest internet I can buy because the servers are too fucking far away. I was weak when I went for D3 and stupid. Never again. I have enough time and money to spend on hundreds of games that aren't saddled with this kind of draconian bullshit.
The worst is that EA learned from Ubisofts example. Ubis naked grab at DRM resulted in cataclysmic losses, so the new direction is to change the design so that you can say "but no really, it's like an MMO!" They underestimate the intelligence of their consumers. This kind of tactic is blatantly obvious with stuff like Simcity and I refuse to support it.
No game at all. I bought Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 in Europe hoping to be able to play them in Asia, but my internet connections are always so choppy that it makes playing impossible. I don't really miss it though, I only feel regret spending a lot of money on 2 games I have hardly played. 
Sim City in a few years...
I give it 20 months.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
if it doesn't prevent you from playing it, i dont have an issue with it.
thesolidshark
Member
No game at all if those are the only options. If EA could control online conditions, that could be a different story (a worse one probably).
Nobody. I have my principles.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I won't technically *quit* gaming if always-online is a requirement for games, because I will just stop buying new ones and instead enjoy hundreds, if not thousands, of older games born before the always-online era arrives.
dark_inferno
Member
MP only > okay
SP and Mp > No
SP only > FUCK NO
A game that has MP elements but feels like a SP game > Why?For the glory of satan?
SP and Mp > No
SP only > FUCK NO
A game that has MP elements but feels like a SP game > Why?For the glory of satan?
No game at all for me. I'm not that starved for good games that I need to submit to those DRM shenanigans. My unfinished PS1/PS2 collection of games is enough to sustain me for years. have I mentioned how it's handy that I can still play those despite a complete absence of official servers?
Well said.
The key element is that they are making it a service. It should be nearly free up front, and then pay as you go. If the service becomes no longer worth it, then you simply stop paying.
But meaningful offline experiences are important too. If the whole industry refuses to provide them, well, I got mine, plenty of games. But feel sorry for the young people getting into gaming who don't have collections of high quality games.
Peter Bazooka
Banned
There will always be other games without always online so I'll just buy those instead.
Gorgon
Member
I'm kind of on the same boat. Seeing EA's recent attitude as an example, I'd just quit gaming. I don't live for gaming so either you provide me with a service I'm happy with or you can go fuck yourself.
GoncaloCCastro
Member
No game at all, this always online is crap. If a steam/origin/uplay game isn't playable in offline mode then I'll have serious doubts about buying it.
There are different implementations of "always online" and some are more prone to have launch related problems than the others. Simcity and Diablo 3 do some of the computing on cloud, which puts much more strain on the servers. Diablo 3 has lag issues not because it's always online, but because of how it is implemented.
Anyway, even if I had some philosophical objections towards this kind of business strategies, I would still buy always online games if I considered the game worthwhile. I could always wait until the launch related server issues are sorted out.
Anyway, even if I had some philosophical objections towards this kind of business strategies, I would still buy always online games if I considered the game worthwhile. I could always wait until the launch related server issues are sorted out.
Exactly!
Looking at the recent Sim City clusterfuck is enlightening, it's like they learned nothing from Spore.
I was mildly interested in playing Sim City (let alone getting it) but in the end I'll skip it entirely.
Same with Spore I thought it would be a nice game to play then in the end I never even played it(not even at a friend's house).
I know I'm usually a console gamer but I do exception, I guess I'll stay with the Sims as far as pc gaming goes, at least they're upfront with taking their customers as ATM machines (if they drop the whole only 1 playable family per neighbourghood).
Online only as a DRM measure can die a fiery death alongside all that mandate and implement it. Yes, it's one of the very few instances where I truly wish bodily harm upon my fellow man. But hey, in my defense, they started it.
Online components that do not impede enjoyment of the main game and in fact enrich it, like in Journey or Dark Souls have my blessing. The gameplay loses some of its appeal when you play offline, but not nearly enough to state that offline players truly lose out. I want more of that and less of the rest, namely:
Tacked on online components that siphon off resources from the main game like the ubiquitious two-months-active-then-dead multiplayer arenas or online-only CoOp modes get my disdain, but oh well, as long as the core game is good on its own I don't mind throwing a bone for those of us unaware of dedicated arena games like UT, CS or Q3A.
Online only games can be cool, like EVE for example - or getting together and raiding some dungeon and finally finally FINALLY surviving the bosses because everyone worked together as they're supposed to. Caveat: I will always treat money spent on games like these as money I actively throw away, much worse than with gaming-related disposable cash where I at least expect a modicum of entertainment in return. I basically bought my GuildWars 2 CE because I wanted the artbook and OST (and the figurine to a waaaaaaaaaaaaaay lesser extent). The bonus game they threw in is a nice gesture.
All that blathering and ranting and I forgot to answer the OPs question, how impolite.
I choose no game at all.
Online components that do not impede enjoyment of the main game and in fact enrich it, like in Journey or Dark Souls have my blessing. The gameplay loses some of its appeal when you play offline, but not nearly enough to state that offline players truly lose out. I want more of that and less of the rest, namely:
Tacked on online components that siphon off resources from the main game like the ubiquitious two-months-active-then-dead multiplayer arenas or online-only CoOp modes get my disdain, but oh well, as long as the core game is good on its own I don't mind throwing a bone for those of us unaware of dedicated arena games like UT, CS or Q3A.
Poor dirty peasantry. 
Online only games can be cool, like EVE for example - or getting together and raiding some dungeon and finally finally FINALLY surviving the bosses because everyone worked together as they're supposed to. Caveat: I will always treat money spent on games like these as money I actively throw away, much worse than with gaming-related disposable cash where I at least expect a modicum of entertainment in return. I basically bought my GuildWars 2 CE because I wanted the artbook and OST (and the figurine to a waaaaaaaaaaaaaay lesser extent). The bonus game they threw in is a nice gesture.
All that blathering and ranting and I forgot to answer the OPs question, how impolite.
I choose no game at all.
I try to avoid always-online DRM but if it's one of my favorite franchises then I'd be willing to deal with it. If it's not in one of my top 10 franchises/series it can just fuck right off. There's more than enough game content out there that I can ignore anti-consumer games. Thankfully the majority of my favorite franchises are Nintendo franchises, so I haven't had to deal with much bullshit DRM. It'd suck if I were into EA/Activision games though. The worst I had to deal with is Diablo 3, which thankfully sucked so I just didn't play much.
I expect consumers to be pissed in 2-3 years when the first few games that used always-online DRM have their servers taken down. I can already imagine the outrage on GAF. By that point I expect it to be much more common in games than now too.
I expect consumers to be pissed in 2-3 years when the first few games that used always-online DRM have their servers taken down. I can already imagine the outrage on GAF. By that point I expect it to be much more common in games than now too.
Diablo III left a very unpleasant taste in my mouth with its 'always on' DRM. Unfortunately for me, living in a place with unstable internet and on a continent far from the servers means my single player experience was a consistantly laggy and choppy one, even outside the awful release week debacle. Totally against, and would rather say goodbye to gaming than reduce my experience to such a frustrating one.
Ironlion45
Neo Member
Always-on DRM or no gaming at all is a false choice. Why? because thousands of games already exist that can be played with non-invasive DRM, or completely free of DRM. Many of these great games of days past.
Many great games developers out there are continuing to produce games that don't require you to be connected to the internet 24/7 to play their games.
There are many companies as well as independent developers who make money in this industry by actually having satisfied customers, loyal fans of their games who are dedicated and are HAPPY to pay money to the developer for continued support and continued development.
Kickstarter proves that this model works. And because it works, and because it enables smaller developers to get in the game with fairly low overhead and risk, there will always be lots of games to choose from that don't force you to be online to play them.
We, as gamers, will always have the choice, and will never have to give up our gaming hobby because we're so against always-on DRM, because there will ALWAYS be plenty of options out there that don't require this, both old games and new.
Always-on DRM isn't the wave of the future. There will be a lot of heavily mass-marketed games from EA that have the feature, perhaps. But other companies that tried to implement it (like Ubisoft) backpedalled from that position because it really pissed off potential customers and actually did the OPPOSITE of deterring piracy. Consumers will get wise to it eventually. They'll be able to bilk a few teenagers out of money for the Sims 4, no doubt. But that's not all that hard to do anyway.
And while DRM clearly doesn't deter piracy, Games that require an internet connection because significant parts of the code are located server-side are another matter; like MMOGS, without that there's no game at all. And yeah, maybe a few such games will do well; there might even be some good ones (from what I hear, if you CAN play Simcity, it's actually pretty fun). But what happens when EA decides that there's no more money to be had?
I bought Simcity 4 almost 10 years ago now. I still play it. Will the latest Simcity still be playable in 10 years? How about five years? The typical lifespan of an EA online game is usually 1-2.5 years; rare exceptions are kept afloat longer than that. Once they don't feel that there's money in it for them, the game is done, over. And nobody will get to play it ever again.
Why would publishers care? They've already cashed in on it, then they'll market the hell out of the next iteration and try to get you to pay for that, as well as $300 worth of DLC.
I'd like to think that consumers will get wise to this; some will. But lets not pretend gamers are the market EA is going for anymore. They're going for the high school kiddies, the tweens and the less-physically-active children out there, begging their moms and dads for money to get whatever game that all their friends have, or that they saw advertised. There's lots of money to be made off that crap, and EA will be able to cash in off it because they'll pay money for anything with lots of pretty pictures in it.
Nothing's going to change that.
But gamers aren't going away, either; and they can vote with their dollars sure enough: There will always be plenty of independent developers who don't make use of these unethical tactics, and actually produce quality games that you'll be able to enjoy for many years to come. And I think there will always be lots of us, or at least people like me, who will happily support them for that.
There will always be a choice, you will never have to give up gaming because of stupid DRM; you may just decide you're not going to go for a title that you would otherwise find interesting.
Many great games developers out there are continuing to produce games that don't require you to be connected to the internet 24/7 to play their games.
There are many companies as well as independent developers who make money in this industry by actually having satisfied customers, loyal fans of their games who are dedicated and are HAPPY to pay money to the developer for continued support and continued development.
Kickstarter proves that this model works. And because it works, and because it enables smaller developers to get in the game with fairly low overhead and risk, there will always be lots of games to choose from that don't force you to be online to play them.
We, as gamers, will always have the choice, and will never have to give up our gaming hobby because we're so against always-on DRM, because there will ALWAYS be plenty of options out there that don't require this, both old games and new.
Always-on DRM isn't the wave of the future. There will be a lot of heavily mass-marketed games from EA that have the feature, perhaps. But other companies that tried to implement it (like Ubisoft) backpedalled from that position because it really pissed off potential customers and actually did the OPPOSITE of deterring piracy. Consumers will get wise to it eventually. They'll be able to bilk a few teenagers out of money for the Sims 4, no doubt. But that's not all that hard to do anyway.
And while DRM clearly doesn't deter piracy, Games that require an internet connection because significant parts of the code are located server-side are another matter; like MMOGS, without that there's no game at all. And yeah, maybe a few such games will do well; there might even be some good ones (from what I hear, if you CAN play Simcity, it's actually pretty fun). But what happens when EA decides that there's no more money to be had?
I bought Simcity 4 almost 10 years ago now. I still play it. Will the latest Simcity still be playable in 10 years? How about five years? The typical lifespan of an EA online game is usually 1-2.5 years; rare exceptions are kept afloat longer than that. Once they don't feel that there's money in it for them, the game is done, over. And nobody will get to play it ever again.
Why would publishers care? They've already cashed in on it, then they'll market the hell out of the next iteration and try to get you to pay for that, as well as $300 worth of DLC.
I'd like to think that consumers will get wise to this; some will. But lets not pretend gamers are the market EA is going for anymore. They're going for the high school kiddies, the tweens and the less-physically-active children out there, begging their moms and dads for money to get whatever game that all their friends have, or that they saw advertised. There's lots of money to be made off that crap, and EA will be able to cash in off it because they'll pay money for anything with lots of pretty pictures in it.
Nothing's going to change that.
But gamers aren't going away, either; and they can vote with their dollars sure enough: There will always be plenty of independent developers who don't make use of these unethical tactics, and actually produce quality games that you'll be able to enjoy for many years to come. And I think there will always be lots of us, or at least people like me, who will happily support them for that.
There will always be a choice, you will never have to give up gaming because of stupid DRM; you may just decide you're not going to go for a title that you would otherwise find interesting.
