-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
id Software: Always-on internet is "better for everybody"
- Thread starter LiK
- Start date
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Steam sucked massive amounts of dick back then.DieH@rd said:iD is not wrong. But change must be implemented by a big game, and D3 is indeed one.
Does anyone remembers the rage when HL2 required Steam?
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
DieH@rd said:iD is not wrong. But change must be implemented by a big game, and D3 is indeed one.
Does anyone remembers the rage when HL2 required Steam?
Does Steam offer an offline mode? Yep. Is iD pushing for an always online requirement? Yes.
DieH@rd said:iD is not wrong. But change must be implemented by a big game, and D3 is indeed one.
Does anyone remembers the rage when HL2 required Steam?
The internet infrastructure isn't ready for this kind of change. If they do it, the industry will shrink and smartphone games will be 90% of the market.
FieryBalrog said:
That example was ridicoulus, yeah. Trying to clone the real deal really is worthless, as every WoW-user basically laughs at those who think that they have it clever AND free. Now, if laughing is fair or not - it is not up to me to decide. But the fact is, WoW >>>>>> pirated WoW, and there is not enough ">>" in the world to describe by how much.
scitek said:
People with smartphones are usually individuals that want to be connected 24/7. How are they going to be the ones that reject always-online DRM? That makes no sense at all; if anything it proves that people are always connected.
There's an enormous market for games that require an internet connection. F2P microtransactions, traditional subscription based MMO, social/facebook games; these are all profitable emerging video game markets that are completely based on network connectivity. Your argument is completely false and based on your personal belief not the factual evidence available to you.
Tylahedras
Banned
FieryBalrog said:
I didn't say it would I said I hoped it would. Also this is a slightly bigger deal then lan play.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
erragal said:
That is what he's saying... If always on internet is required than PC games that don't appeal to casuals will begin to shrink and smartphones will gain future iterations since they, unlike PC's, are always connected as they have to be.
cabot said:
Really now. So you couldn't care less about people who live in countries that have internet caps. You couldn't care less about people who because where they live they don't have stable internet access. Fuck' em right?
V_Arnold said:
I'm not saying it replicates the thing perfectly (which it doesn't, duh), but it gets the job done enough to fuck around in which is the entire point and is usually more than enough for those who do it.
As for me duping items? Yeah, I'll get right on that while you assume that it hasn't happened in WoW in the past (because there are no bots in WoW ever either, right? Or exploits that Blizzard completely haphazardly overlooks than punishes those for mistakes they stupidly made) nor than it will happen in Diablo 3. That's just naive.
cabot said:
Wooooo boy. Got ourselves a winner here.
LovingSteam said:
Really don't think that's what -he- said (since he said 'the infrastructure isn't ready') but I'll address it anyway.
Designing a game with pervasive online components doesn't automatically make a game casual. Quite the opposite; games like WoW and hybrid facebook games (Age of Empires/Civilization Worlds) are interesting in how they use accessibility and the social nature of their format to introduce people to game styles they might not otherwise play. If anything this serves to increase the potential audience for more complex and original gameplay mechanisms.
What makes you believe online-only games are automatically casual and will lead to the death of pc gaming?
Not sure why Devs feel they need to do this Online-DRM.
If they feel they need to do this so they can keep producting games for PC I'm kinda okish with it but how is the PC games sales lately? I know it's still behind consoles by a lot.
Just the idea that if I buy a game for 60 and one weekend my Internet goes down I can't play those games feels just beyond stupid.
If they feel they need to do this so they can keep producting games for PC I'm kinda okish with it but how is the PC games sales lately? I know it's still behind consoles by a lot.
Just the idea that if I buy a game for 60 and one weekend my Internet goes down I can't play those games feels just beyond stupid.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
erragal said:
I don't mean online-only games are automatically casual. Rather, many people refuse to purchase games that are online-only on the PC. They shouldn't have to be online 24-7 to have access to their game. If its multiplayer than yes, obviously. But a single player game shouldn't require online-only since many have download caps as well as live in a location where access is unstable. If publishers are going to require internet 24/7 then they are going to appeal to a different audience.
Forsaken82
Member
schick85 said:
Apparently its about as much of a chore as circumventing archaic DRMs for some people.
FieryBalrog
Member
Kintaro said:
Which is the polar opposite of "pirates get the better experience". What experience do pirates get playing WoW on private servers? The server admin spamming for donations, content that is often half finished or missing (and of course six months to a year behind), unmitigated hacking and so on of characters, and usually along with the donations there's a "buy your way to the top" so the admin can "support" the server, making it more of a F2P game than anything "pirated".
Speaking from personal experience with people who have tried private WoW servers.
Anything where the pirating entails large ongoing costs, the pirates simply can't replicate the experience to any useful degree.
Doesn't make much sense for it to be obligatory to play the game. You can check for patches etc. when it boots up - no internet? then just run the game. It's completely ridiculous that a single player game would demand an internet connection for every second of playtime. It serves no purpose other than to make the producers of the game think they're safe against piracy somehow.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
StuBurns said:
Diablo 3 has a name and history that is unique. It won't have any problems regardless of the online only. When it comes to other franchises or IP's its a different story.
Kintaro said:
Design the most (Read: Most, not completely) secure system you can for maintaining the integrity/secrecy of your data structures in an online environment. Keep in mind: if anyone can duplicate items they can effectively create real money out of thin air.
To do this you want all of your data to be server side; client side gets graphical information and feedback data but you don't actually give your client any item data at all. Each item is going to have a unique identifier when it drops that is assigned completely server side and only the fact that you own that item will be known client side; the actual identifier number can be kept completely server side. How it's assigned can be kept completely server side. How character data is stored can be kept completely server side.
Are you incapable of understanding the advantage this presents from a security standpoint? Just think of the increased effort it will take to attempt to reverse engineer EXACTLY HOW THEY DESIGNED their game based only on the minimal display data the server is sending to the client. That's the point of having online only; obscure your architechture to protect your real money auction house.
Will it/Can it be hacked/duped? It's going to be really challenging without an inside person. With every item needing a unique identifier it's going to be impossible to dupe items without either a bug in the game (Say something that causes the item to pick a new unique ID when it respawns in a certain condition) or learning exactly how to identify unique item numbers.
The best part? Even if it is cracked they can change everything behind the scenes and force them to start from the beginning again.
So how am I being naive here?
FieryBalrog
Member
If these consoles were able to switch to a DD/no physical media required model, then sure, throw them in. Which actually, would be a huge plus for me.Curufinwe said:
LovingSteam said:
Do they refuse to purchase them? Are you basing that just on this message board? What proof do we have of that?
I'm not trying to attack you; it's just important to remember that the most vocal people are always those that are upset at something. People that don't care ("Eh, whatever I'm always online anyway") don't have much to say usually.
They are going to appeal to a different audience for sure, but it's comprised mostly of the same audience minus the people without persitent online connections. Any company making this decision probably had months of meetings discussing whether it was worth it and they're all going to come to the same conclusion: so many people do have internet and so many people pirate that the few people without persistent internet that don't pirate that would buy their game isn't worth it. Sad reality indeed.
LovingSteam said:
I agree. I'm pretty sure D3 will be a success but Diablo 3 =/ Any other OnlineDRM game.
Also at least D3 has MP/Coop and AH features and in general can be considered Online game. Still sucks.
Sad thing is that even with this the games will be cracked eventually and the ones who actually buy the game will be the only ones suffering from this.
flyinpiranha
Member
plc268 said:
This is the only thing that bugs me. How much bandwidth is at play here? Is it just a check? If I'm watching Netflix on my TV then the girl fires up Hulu will I get kicked?
I'm only weary of it because of the unknowns. If it's a simple check, what if it drops something or is accidentally blocked or something? How do the saves work?
If they'd just let us know more details I'd be fine, it's just that they drop this bomb and run away.
Here's the thing. If you're online and you get the benefits of updates and certain things happening, great, that's all cool.
However, if your internet goes down, or you don't have internet you should not be locked out of a game YOU purchased. It should be the consumers choice whether they are online or offline.
The ONLY time "always online" should be tolerated is if the game company you buy the game from provided your internet and could guarantee that it would be 100% stable.
However, if your internet goes down, or you don't have internet you should not be locked out of a game YOU purchased. It should be the consumers choice whether they are online or offline.
The ONLY time "always online" should be tolerated is if the game company you buy the game from provided your internet and could guarantee that it would be 100% stable.
Deadstar said:
That's not how products work. You have an entitlement issue. This is similar to saying that anyone selling you a device that runs on electric should only be allowed to do so if they also provide your electricity and guarentee it will be 100% stable.
Do you understand how outrageous that sounds? There are products that require other services to use them properly; they aren't products intended for you to buy if you don't have those other services.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
IMO if this happened today (in the U.S.), the game industry would definitely have its second crash. The drop off on PCs would be 15%. On consoles, it would be 30%. The numbers would be higher if it weren't for the fact for that some would buy it without being aware of the limitation, and others would buy, see that their poor internet connection/provider kicks them off the game all of the time.StuBurns said:
So you would have a small drop off in the first wave, but bigger drop off in all proceeding waves - every game from that publisher or the whole industry that has it will not be bought by the ones that got burned the first time. Now they will be paying attention to which games have it, and if they all do, the industry couldn't sustain itself on the huge sale decrease (it barely gets by now).
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Honestly, I wouldn't care as much if I WAS always online. But when I go visit my parents or take my laptop to a hotel I'm NOT always online. This is especially egregious with single player games. I just want to play the damn game. I get especially annoyed when I forget to put steam in offline mode before leaving on a trip.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
Horrible analogy - games never needed always-on internet before. Electrical appliances have always needed electricity obviously. Its just an unnecessary limitation put on the consumer that forces those with bad connections (or too poor to have internet -yes, they exist) to not buy your products or look for other ways to obtain.erragal said:
A more correct analogy would be not allowing people who have smartphones into movie theaters. Or an even stupider one (but still more correct than yours) would be any new furniture you buy has to be plugged in to the electricity/internet. If not, the bed/sofa will fold itself up automatically and would not work.
Deadstar said:
Even if their internet stays up with constant high speeds, people can still be locked out of playing a game they purchased with single player because the game servers are down or no longer exist or someone IT worker screws up and blocks an IP range.
Personally I find it outrageous to think that you can purchase a game, have all the requirements met such as hardware and whatever DRM there be, just want to play single player, and still not be able to play it because somewhere there is a server that is not giving a response back. Of course I'm silly, believing that we have a just claim to playing a game we purchased when we want to.
StuBurns said:
Stats gathering. The average weight of a person who sits/lays on the sofa, how often, what times of the day that sofa is being used for, the wear and tear due to use and more are all beamed back to the home base for research in order to make better, more secure sofas in the future.
=)
charsace said:
No, its okay. If you don't like this, you're simply no longer their customer. Plus, you have entitlement issues.
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
It doesn't matter what publishers think or if they need a reason, what matters is consumer sales. No matter what, always-on internet will hurt the industry and the publishers themselves much more than the customers. Customers will always have older games and other forms of entertainment.StuBurns said:
Rollo Lawson
Banned
lol wow. in other words stfu and get over it. "they'll live". i was waiting for this game but im not sure i want to support that attitude towards customers...
KingJ2002
Member
From a developers perspective it probably is better seeing as how they can do more with an always-on connection.
but for the common user... that might be a pain.
1. single player campaigns would more than likely be bombarded with things such as rotating in-game advertisements, upsells and what not
2. banning a user from accessing the server would ban them from their purchase (crysis 2 im looking at you)
3. people who can't afford internet access would never be able to play the game.
4. DRM methods would become ridiculous... such as locking core content until you're able to get back online (looking at you capcom)
5. Companies will create their own "stores" with "exclusives" and customers will be forced to sign multiple user agreements and see segmenting on a whole different scale even worse than what's currently going on with DLC (imagine not being able to play someone in the same game because they bought their title from EA Origin instead of Steam and the user agreements aren't compatible)
these things will most likely happen because they are happening NOW... if always-on internet came to consoles... console gaming would be more of a hassle than ever.
but for the common user... that might be a pain.
1. single player campaigns would more than likely be bombarded with things such as rotating in-game advertisements, upsells and what not
2. banning a user from accessing the server would ban them from their purchase (crysis 2 im looking at you)
3. people who can't afford internet access would never be able to play the game.
4. DRM methods would become ridiculous... such as locking core content until you're able to get back online (looking at you capcom)
5. Companies will create their own "stores" with "exclusives" and customers will be forced to sign multiple user agreements and see segmenting on a whole different scale even worse than what's currently going on with DLC (imagine not being able to play someone in the same game because they bought their title from EA Origin instead of Steam and the user agreements aren't compatible)
these things will most likely happen because they are happening NOW... if always-on internet came to consoles... console gaming would be more of a hassle than ever.
Rollo Lawson
Banned
StuBurns said:
edit: no. for some reason i was focused on diablo 3
I don't want all my entertainment having more and more requirements in order to enjoy it. There have been several times where i couldn't watch a netflix streaming movie, whether it's because Netflix was down or my internet connection was having trouble. I don't want this to become the same for gaming as well. Right now all i need is power, a working tv, and a working system. I don't want to factor in a stable internet connection and publisher servers just to play a single player game.
Saying " better for everybody" is an obvious lie.
Saying " better for everybody" is an obvious lie.