Always On-line is Not a Deal-Breaker for Me.

[w00tage]

/agree completely, but I just wanted to point out you can manually set Steam to "offline" mode. It's possible it won't work (Valve's web programming works like early Microsoft web technology, meaning not well nor very often), but at least there's a button to push.

I thought so too. Here's there stupid thing about the offline button. You have to sign online first to go offline. That's right. To make it so you don't need an internet connection to play, you have to sign on (I guess to show steam that all the games in your library are actually yours), then click the offline mode. If you aren't able to connect to the internet, you aren't able to connect with steam.

captcha: love-hate

I'm getting tired of pointing this out. If you people don't realize Captcha has now evolved, you deserve to get stepped on by the giant random phrase quoting robots when the uprising comes.

In a word - derp.

 

[w00tage]

Lets do this simple, Diablo 3. A totally single-player game that requires always on to stop piracy [BTW, it doesn't] and only exists to pat the wallets of Blizzard. It is not there to make your experience better, its online only, its not there to do anything but try and discourage the piracy that will happen.

So far as we've been told by the maker. IMO this is more of the same red-herring crap about "piracy is killing our bizness" that the dot-bombers used to get permission to bypass all consumer-protection laws with "license agreements". Now they're using it to bypass - excuse me, "transcend" - the rest of the customary limitations on transactions that have protected customers from predatory practices.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I've thought that for a while now on past generation console games. The one major difference between this and other forms of media are the fact that you can still get the other ones after the lifespan of its media. Like a band from the 70s and can't get an 8-track of their stuff? That's okay. We have CDs or digital distribution.

As for Diablo III, it's simple. Any barrier to playing a game that I own where it becomes wholly reliant on said companies continued service is problematic. When I purchase a game (or the license, its really irrelevant for the sake of this argument), I want to be able to play it when I want, whether that is on launch day or 20 years from now. I'm still playing my NES and such.

 

[girzwald]

Well it's a deal breaker for me. I don't want to have to depend on anything other than the functionality of my gaming system in order to play MY GAMES that I bought with MY MONEY.

This is an entirely reasonable point of view. What are we going to do when Blizzard goes bust (everything ends) and we want to have a quick bash on D3?

Legislation should be passed, or perhaps just a bill to clarify things, to allow consumers to hack the DRM of defunct companies. That way consumers will be empowered to enjoy the creative products of companies after they go to the wall whilst allowing companies to protect their sales.

I'd assume they'd do the same thing Valve have always said they'd do if Steam ever dies - disable all protection.

What's funny about this though is that problems can already happen like this WITHOUT always online DRM - i'm currently unable to play Alpha Protocol due to the authentication server being disabled and the patch not liking my Windows 7 install for some reason.

I don't know if legislation is needed, or really a viable option tbh.

Yes, because I'm sure that will be top priority for a company that is going bankrupt and trying to liquidate its assets, giving their former customers who didn't buy enough games to keep them in business a way to play their games, for free.

How would it be free? The games have already been paid for.

If you're referring to pirates - by the time Blizz go under, i'm sure crackers would of found a way around the DRM, as they have with every other form of DRM, so I don't see how turning off the DRM would make games any more free than they already have the possibility to be right now.

Not the games, the unlocking and ability to play their games. That process, them doing it for free. While they are going bankrupt and liquidating assets.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Oh boy. Okay, OP. This is not a topic you make a stand on or address. This is a topic you form an opinion on and only speak about with close friends who won't lynch you for expressing your opinion. This is akin to religion and politics. You do not discuss it with random people because it cannot be address in any constructive way. Find real people to talk to and find other ways to vent your frustration because topic like this go south before you even hit the post button.

Anyway, I support efforts to continue to work with DRM of this nature. I know its flawed but also know the internet will be ubiquitous in the future, even in the middle of nowhere, and thus internet connections won't be a problem. With the way things are going even your toaster will be updating your Facebook with your breakfast info before long. I see peoples' problems with it, but I also see potential and think simply dismissing it is short sighted.

 

[Mudkipith]

Who cares if it doesn't impede everyone. It's still silly and useless.

There's literally nothing a game developer/publisher can do to keep me from playing their game in any form I want to.

It's easy to circumvent, but still inconveniencing and silly.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

If my internet connection goes down for a week or something for some reason...I can't play a game I paid money for.

That is just pathetic.

You're right, it is. You shouldn't spend that week moaning because you're the victim of network issues, you should pick yourself up and stop being a child. You might want to but sometimes you can't always get what you want. I should apologise though, most children know that they can't always get what they want, so sorry kids.

OT: I'm with you OP. My internet connection isn't great, it's pretty shitty in fact. But I still make do on Company of Heroes, who has a similar always on network. It's never been a problem, in fact I forget entirely that I'm logged into their servers.

Why should people with a non-stable internet connection suffer for those among us who do have a good one? Works both ways.

Your consumer issues aren't the problem of other consumers. I hate it but it's ultimately down to whether your current set up can handle the game. If it can't then you don't buy it, or you play it with lag.

I'm not sat here complaining that I can't play it because my processor can't handle it. It's the same issue with it being always online, sometimes certain people become alienated. Like I said I don't like it but it's one of those things that just has to be dealt with.

 

[NiPah]

Playing Diablo singleplayer is like playing Chess singleplayer in that you can do it but it won't be much fun.

And Yet people who pirate the game don't have this problem

Here is the #1 problem with ANY DRM. Legit consumers are the only ones punished by it. Pirates won't give a shit, they'll work their way around it in a matter of hours.

Under that "logic" we may as well not do anything. Why make new Anti-Virus software? Hackers will just make new Viruses! Why cure diseases? Resistant versions will just show up! Let's just all lie down and die because if the Universe doesn't hand it to you forever on a silver platter on the first try it's doomed to eternal failure and isn't worth trying!

If said anti-virus and medicinal research was as laughably shit as the current DRM scene is I wouldn't try either. We're not talking about some DRM that will benefit the stock holders and stop people from pirating the game for a few years, we're talking about a DRM that has made the game unplayable for paying customers and gave the pirate scene about a day to break (well maybe not a day, the code was already around before the game even launched).

Lets not compare current DRM to virus scans and medicine until it actually helps the consumer and not just fucks everything up.

 

[Something Amyss]

All of these state otherwise.

And if Nielsen was in any way relevant these days, that would be a hell of a lot of evidence.

Just sayin'

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Change is not always good, change is not always bad. Here I think change is bad, because it is removing the ability to play the game as you want to.

Regardless of my internet connection (which is fine mostly I guess) I would like to play without being forced to be part of the online community, and that's why IT IS a deal breaker for me and I will not buy it as a result.

Let me ask this: What exactly would Blizzard lose if they took away this online-requirement? Potential sales for the online auction house? If that's the case, the desire of extra money has overtaken convenience for the fans and that's a really sad state of affairs.

If Diablo III had no single-player, then no one would complain or take issue. I don't see how people say that D3 has no single-player at all, or say wasn't "built as an single-player experience."

 

[Sprinal]

Most of our phones, tables and laptops are connected to the internet.

Yes But I get charged alot of money to use it

Yet, why is it a problem when a game like Diablo 3, requires you to be on-line all the time?

The problem for me is that the university which I live on campus at blocks the protocol used for connecting to the Servers

The always on-line feature is not just DRM. I'm not denying that is serves as DRM, but it's not JUST there as DRM,
Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.
Always On-line tries to reduce this.

This is true. I will not argue with you on this one however it does also prevent any decent level of modding either. I liked some of the Diablo 2 mods. And I refuse to play Fallout 3, new vegas, oblivion, Skyrim without any. This is the problem with use of it as a control.

If you have an unstable internet connection, I get your frustration, but the internet is the future, and I'm really sorry if your government doesn't support stable 24/7 connections, but the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for it.

No you Don't "get" our frustration. unless you are forced to put up with always on DRM without a stable connection for a long period of time and end up playing almost exclusively indie titles and old games. because of it.

Maybe it's because I play on-line a lot, and see it as nothing new. But when my internet drops out, I just play something else for a moment.

Doesn't help if your online entertainment is blocked. You will be playing something else for a loooooong time.


This is why I don't agree with you on this.

 

[Kahunaburger]

No you Don't "get" our frustration. unless you are forced to put up with always on DRM without a stable connection for a long period of time and end up playing almost exclusively indie titles and old games. because of it.

There are worse fates.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

You don't understand why people complain about things that do not affect you... my that is a shocker, next you will tell us you don't care about the political system on Cybertron!
It's like my dad who complains about medical research, since he is in perfect health why should anyone waste money on something so silly.

Ignorance is quite humorous sometimes, but you should know your opinions are meaningless until you do grasp what this topic is about.

But people will play Team Fortress and not have a problem with being online for that, but once it is needed for this DRM its a completely different story.

You can go with the Multi/Single argument for why it is different, but at the end of the day bought 2 games you were unable to enjoy while off line.

might have something to do with the fact that well.... Team Fortess 2 is a multiplayer game

the point is that alot of people want to play D3 single player. why do they need to be online for that? what if the internet goes down through no fault of there own or the servers are really busy? shouldnt they still be allowed to play single player?


edit: and to all the people saying "the internet is the future" yes i agree but remember thats the future not right now. sure a steady interent everywhere is possible in a decade or so but thats then not now

Apply all of those to tf2.

Same result. If you can play team fortress. You can play D3. You can go "Multiplayer" all you want. It still doesn't change, if you can play the one you can play the other.

Apply all that to tf2... well if steam is in offline mode, you can play tf2 with bots. And tf2 is a multiplayer game. If i got D3, I'd probably play multiplayer, but I'd mainly play singleplayer. I don't want lag in a single player game.

 

[Pat8u]

I personally like always online as you can play the game on any system without an install you just transfer the files over on a Thumbdrive

 

[Kerboom]

Diablo 2 was plagues with hacks, dubbing of items and a worthless economy due to gold buying.
Always On-line tries to reduce this.

This is where I stopped reading.

I played Diablo 2 six times through. Did I once touch the online portion of the game or feel the need to even consider it?
No.
I didn't at all.

I played it as one should. I played it fighting the evil forces by myself, and I fucking loved every minute of it.

I would play Diablo 3 exactly the same way.

I don't see why I should need to be always connected to their servers to play a game on my own. It's ridiculous.

 

[spartandude]

a stable internet connection and digital distribution for the video game industry is the future and we should accept that, we also need accept that this is the FUTURE not the now
ok im not going to get into the whole "what if my internet cuts out" argument which is consuming this discussion but i will say that i agree with those people complaining about unstable connections

what does annoy me the most is that these always online games cant even provide the service. look at diablo 3, they said always online is required and whether you have a good connection or not its Blizzard who is fucking up. its several days after launch and people are having great difficulty accessing blizzard servers to play merely single player.
another great example was the Assassin's Creed situation where servers were taken down mid game forcing people to close and lose all progress, or a slight momentary hick up in their connection fucked them over

not to mention digital distribution is the realm of ye Pirates, yes we have to brave these waters sooner or later and im glad we are, but devs and publishers are actually offering a service which is worse than the pirates. for one with online sales you need a credit card and if you are young (as i was when i started gaming) you wouldnt be able to buy games but piracy was there (having a points system like Xbox live might helo this). but as mentioned above with always online games a slight hick up disconnects you, but with a pirated version you can still play it


disclaimer, no im not infavour of piracy

 

[drednoahl]

a stable internet connection and digital distribution for the video game industry is the future and we should accept that, we also need accept that this is the FUTURE not the now
ok im not going to get into the whole "what if my internet cuts out" argument which is consuming this discussion but i will say that i agree with those people complaining about unstable connections

I pay a lot of money for my internet connection; when the gaming industry pays for my internet connection they can have a say on how I use it on the single player games I buy, but while I'm the sucker paying for it they can get stuffed.

At least in my case there is no "now" or "future" for always online single player games - I will never buy them.

 

[Altorin]

doesn't really matter if it's not a deal breaker for you. just like it doesn't really matter for any one individual person that it is a deal breaker for them. Lots of people care, lots of people don't care, doesn't invalidate either side.