'Always online' will affect you whether or not you have a good connection.

[SonOfVoorhees]

So if i buy a game today for £40, 4 years or more later the server is turned off, ive wasted £40? Really? So those 4 years of fun gaming wasnt worth £40? Most people dont play games a few years down the line and a company isnt going to keep servers open if only a handful of people want to play it. If they turned it off within 5 months, then fair enough, you would have a right to moan but then if they did that the game was probably shit and unpopular.

As for always online being bad, its not in and of it self (although i do hate it if your playing single player offline). You mentioned Diablo 3 and Simcity. The online part wasnt the issue with those titles. It was lack of server space and the developers releasing a crappy game without proper testing and ensuring it was ready. If they released both games with zero problems so people could play them perfectly day one, there wouldnt be moaning.

So what have we learnt? If you buy anything that needs always online, wait. Read reviews and never preorder. Read sites to see if there were any server issues. Or just wait for a few months before you buy it. An i agree, we shouldnt have to, we should be able to buy a game on release day and enjoy the most out of it straight away. But to be honest, im not surprised by this at all. Games seem to always be released bugged and needing day one patches......how about these companies only releasing it when its actually a perfect project. An making games always online will just enable developers to be sloppy and rush out titles because if anything happen they can always patch.

 

[Something Amyss]

My god. Why is the only response supporters of always online DRM have is to talk about how it's just a game, and it's not the end of the world if it doesn't work for a little while, and so forth?

They're lashing out in anger because of the cognitive dissonance their position causes them. I think most of them understand, on some level, how untenable this position really is.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

MMOs have avoided this issue by being LABELED as MMOs when they make sense to be.

And just about every always-on game (MMO or not) is "labelled" as requiring a constant internet connection in it's Minimum Requirements. Companies are hardly to blame for the fact that most people today are apparently either illiterate or stupid.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not blaming companies for people not reading system requirements. I'm blaming them for putting in the stupid system in the first place.

My reference is to the fact that Simcity (2013) is not an MMO, yet it's DRM was defended by EA as being part of an MMO system.

?If you play an MMO, you don?t demand an offline mode, you just don?t.?
http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2013/03/28/eas-frank-gibeau-calls-simcity-an-mmo-not-drm/

Or the fact that Diablo III was originally intended to be an MMO, while it is now an MMO-Hybrid in order to justify its "online requirements."

 

[Aeshi]

MMOs have avoided this issue by being LABELED as MMOs when they make sense to be.

And just about every always-on game (MMO or not) is "labelled" as requiring a constant internet connection in it's Minimum Requirements. Companies are hardly to blame for the fact that most people today are apparently either illiterate or stupid.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. I'm not blaming companies for people not reading system requirements. I'm blaming them for putting in the stupid system in the first place.

My reference is to the fact that Simcity (2013) is not an MMO, yet it's DRM was defended by EA as being part of an MMO system.

?If you play an MMO, you don?t demand an offline mode, you just don?t.?
http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2013/03/28/eas-frank-gibeau-calls-simcity-an-mmo-not-drm/

Or the fact that Diablo III was originally intended to be an MMO, while it is now an MMO-Hybrid in order to justify its "online requirements."

And what's the difference? That the three letters on the front of their respective boxes is a different three letters to the ones on the boxes of MMOs?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

And what's the difference? That the three letters on the front of their respective boxes is a different three letters to the ones on the boxes of MMOs?

Their companies defend them as MMOs or via their multiplayer components, as if this makes a difference to the fact that their "required" online components are completely unnecessary, and despite the fact that they have not been called MMOs previously.

Simply ignoring the idea that maybe some people want to play alone without need of an internet connection.

MMOs require an internet connection? fine.
Are these games MMOs? No, if they are then don't say they have a single-player option.

I don't care about how clear their statements on the box are (I do my research anyway), I'm not going to consider touching a single-player game that needs alway-online to work. But don't treat me like an idiot who can't see a bullshit argument. "It's an MMO." is both untrue and reeks of horrible logic.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Are some people really willing to give up their rights for a chance to play Halo 5? C'mon guys...

yes, yes they are. blinkered appologists who think that because it'll suit them or they can put up with it, so can/will/should everyone else.

"oh but its only offline for a few hours a week, dont be so entitled/go do something else"
funnily enough, i know gaming is nothing but a luxury; i have a son and a job, that luxury becomes all that more important when i only have a certain amount of time to play. if them couple of hours are the only couple of hours i have that week, then what is the point of me having the game?

My son is 8, think I'm going to allow him unsupervised on an always online machine? think again. so thats reduced the amount of time he gets to play. (plus if used games die, thats his main game supply cut off anyway but that is a different subject)

Think i'm the only one who has limited time to play?
Think i'm the only one who doesn't want their child online unsupervised?
Thinking like that pushes away from the games industry, is that what dev's, publishers etc want? less customers? console industry collapsed in the 80's due to bad practices, whos to say it wont happen again, we are in a recession after all

 

[Genocidicles]

I believe Xbone is going to require you to only log in once a day, for a quick verification....which in theory can be done even with dial up if need be. Add in the ability to get reliable (from all accounts, I don't have it) satellite wireless internet for as little as $50 (from dish network for one), and anyone can have internet service if they want at this point.

Yes most people have internet good enough to connect once a day, but being reliant on Microsoft's servers means that the console has a built in lifespan. When they switch those servers off (and they will), the console is just a brick and all the games to play on it are worthless.

So if i buy a game today for £40, 4 years or more later the server is turned off, ive wasted £40? Really? So those 4 years of fun gaming wasnt worth £40? Most people dont play games a few years down the line and a company isnt going to keep servers open if only a handful of people want to play it. If they turned it off within 5 months, then fair enough, you would have a right to moan but then if they did that the game was probably shit and unpopular.

Well then they shouldn't make games reliant on the servers in the first place. You don't need servers to play singleplayer games, so it's just them putting an unnecessary lifespan on their games just because they're greedy assholes.

 

[MagunBFP]

Because you are making the choice when your car gets repaired or shirt gets washed. You don't have that option for an always-online game, the people on the other side make that choice.

When your computer breaks, you are in control.
When Diablo III, Simcity, or Xbone breaks, you have zero control.

If your car is broken, your only option is to not use it until a mechanic fixes it. You get to choose when he starts but not how long he takes, or how much he charges. Unless you're fixing your own computer its the same deal, you have no choice, you get no warning its just dead until it gets fixed. Fate decides when your "insert object/service" here and people on the other side decide when it's ready for use again. When MS shuts Xbox live down for maintenance there's not a gamer who can do a thing about it, but its not so different from a lot of other things people have no control over.

You could say it's just as bad. They created a system where your car can be shut down or hijacked with ease and you're left with nothing until it's returned. Sure it will be returned, but it's always going to vulnerable.

Ease is a very relative term, I know I don't have the skill to shut down or hijack Xbox live... but a carjacking, I'm capable of that. Regardless of the vulnerabilities I will be able to use my Xbox again once the hijacking is over, but if I get my original car back, it will also have the same vulnerabilities as well... and that's assuming I got the car back, which is not the most likely outcome of that hijacking.

Yes, the problem isn't as big as that, and that's not what he's saying. But it's what the situation means for consumers.

You pay money for a product, the product doesn't work. It works AS ADVERTISED (as part of an online network), but it doesn't make sense when you have a problem that can clearly be avoided.

Hold up a minute... something works in exactly the way they said it, they didn't hide anything and spring it on you after it was too late for you not to buy it... and you, being fully aware of the situation, still paid money for the product? Then you got exactly what you paid for... if the product works as advertised then you're not actually entitled to anything more. If you want more I can understand that, but you got what you paid for if that's not enough then don't buy it and find someone else who delivers what you want. If the Microsoft "friend zones" you then ranting about how unfair it is that you didn't get what you wanted and deserved as a gamer is kinda uncalled for.

 

[DoPo]

You don't know how the cloud works do you?

And you, by contrast, know me so well! Or you just made that up to insult me. Hmm, which one is it...well, whatever - if you do know me, there is no point in discussing this - you already know what I'll say. If you did insult me - there is no point in discussing this.

I don't think I'll be discussing this.

 

[RicoADF]

You don't know how the cloud works do you?

And you, by contrast, know me so well! Or you just made that up to insult me. Hmm, which one is it...well, whatever - if you do know me, there is no point in discussing this - you already know what I'll say. If you did insult me - there is no point in discussing this.

I don't think I'll be discussing this.

No it wasn't an insult, it was an actual question. If I read correctly you were saying that adding more virtual servers would solve the issues of demand on the cloud servers. Which in my comment I said no amount of virtualisation will solve the issue of bandwidth and processing power if the servers are underpowered (which considering SimCity and Diablo 3 launchers have shown is extremely likely). I wish people weren't so quick to get their hackles up and twist questions into somehow being insults :-/

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I can see it now.

Xbox One release night - Hacker "Hmmmmm."

Three months later - Hacker "Hey guys, give me $20 and I'll make your Xbone play-able offline. Oh and don't worry about system updates, I got those covered as well."

One week after that - Hacker (rolling in an entire vault of money) "god bless you Microsoft."

*gasp* what if... now hear me out:

what if these hackers are on Microsoft's payroll?
what if they're not hackers at all, and Microsoft is producing these modifications right now as we speak, charging us for it on top of buying the consoles!?

 

[zefichan]

: You don't "need" games. If a game is down because the servers are down, you find something else to do.

Only a complete idiot would argue this. With NO other form of entertainment would this stupid argument fly. EVERY other form of entertainment or product has people rightfully demand that it works. Why should it be expected that when you pay for something, it can randomly not work - and that then is totally ok? That's nonsense.

That's why I am wondering if you're even a genuine player and not a marketing drone trying to do PR control.

In short, you have the right to be annoyed, but don't say, "THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN! I PAID MONEY FOR THIS" when in reality you should know that when paying for a product that is always online it has the potential to have it's servers go down.

Precisely. The amount of buttpain people have about us not buying the Xbone is glorious.

 

[MagunBFP]

Are you seriously comparing repairing your car and washing your clothes with publisher-imposed DRM which has no place being there in the first place and its ONLY reason to exist is to control you and the usage scenario e.g. take away rights from you, among them:
- being able to play at all times
- being able to play how you want
- being able to play after they drop support
- being able to resell
- being able to lend/rent
- being able to datamine you and possibly deliver better targeted Ads
- better monetize stuff to extract the maximum money from you
etc.

If you read the whole thing you'd have noticed that EtherealBeaver was the one who made the comparison first. Also I'm not sure you can say "the only reason" for something and then have two reasons... especially not in bold. Also being able to rent a game isn't actually a right, I'm pretty sure its against the terms of service unless you purchase a commercial license its like videos and DVDs in that way. Your last two "rights" are actually not rights, they'd be more only reasons but you're not entitled to either of those.

As for "better monetizing stuff to extract the maximum money from you" well DLC, Day 1 DLC, skins, desktop themes, Avatar items, etc they've all existed before publisher imposed DRM, so you're a little late to rant about that party.

Being able to play after they drop support... how do you know they won't patch out the need to need to be online when they decide they no longer want to support the game? Do you know what agreements they've made with MS to support the game for a certain time? Do you have any idea how much easier it is to patch and update locally controlled servers instead of having to distribute it to millions of people with different connections and then keeping that update available forever because someone might play the game 1 year after its been patched?

Being able to play how you want? I assume you me playing online or offline, because we're always restricted by how the programmers have decided to limit us... I can't tell you the number of times I wanted Batman to be able to properly fly. Why don't you complain to Blizzard about your right to play WoW offline? Maybe you like WoW but just don't like MMOs.

You might have a point about being able to play at all times, although if not being able to play a video game for a couple of hours because of maintenance being done on the system is going to get you so upset then I suggest it may be time to take a break and go outside for a bit.

Personally I would suggest that the console DRM is there more to stop the pirate/chipped consoles, we all know they exist, and to stop the used game trade. Can you blame them though, publishers throw millions of dollars at a game to get as much money out of it as possible, and then game-stop goes and thousands and thousands of dollars from them. That people have to spend $10 or $20 more for a new game, isn't unreasonable in my opinion and lets be honest here, the only reason a used game is cheaper then a new game is because people will also go for the cheaper option, the used games are only as cheap as the have to be, and as expensive as the can be while staying tempting to penny pinchers.

 

[DoPo]

You don't know how the cloud works do you?

And you, by contrast, know me so well! Or you just made that up to insult me. Hmm, which one is it...well, whatever - if you do know me, there is no point in discussing this - you already know what I'll say. If you did insult me - there is no point in discussing this.

I don't think I'll be discussing this.

No it wasn't an insult, it was an actual question. If I read correctly you were saying that adding more virtual servers would solve the issues of demand on the cloud servers. Which in my comment I said no amount of virtualisation will solve the issue of bandwidth and processing power if the servers are underpowered (which considering SimCity and Diablo 3 launchers have shown is extremely likely). I wish people weren't so quick to get their hackles up and twist questions into somehow being insults :-/

I do indeed know what the cloud is. And saying "it's underpowered" means that you're implying I'm talking about something different. If SimCity did indeed use Infrastructure as a Service and it failed as hard as it did, then what they actually did is throw "cloud" more as a buzzword. The could is there to overprovide tremendously. It's processing as a utility, so there is no actual need to not do it. And since EA can clearly throw money at this game, they could have prepared for launch peak loads. They didn't. And they had to deploy more machines. That's not "using the cloud" that's "using buzzwords because it makes us look kewl" and then just...botching it.

But then again it's not like Microsoft are not guilty of using buzzwords themselves


Can you tell what the fuck the cloud is from this? Imagine this was your introduction. I mean, I can guess that it's probably SaaS but it also comes across as...fucking magic. If the ad ended and it revealed it was about yoghurt, I'd have served the same purpose, to be honest.

 

[SecondPrize]

Even if it won't affect me, having the requirement to check in once per day does absolutely nothing for me. I get jack shit from being forced to go online every 24 hours.
Now, lets look at the downsides. Here's one, I won't have access to single player games which I have purchased if I don't connect my console to the internet.

Now let's tally the score. In the benefits column, we have absolutely fucking nothing. In the drawback column, we have single player games not fucking working If my Xbox didn't call it's probation officer that day.

 

[Legion]

While I agree with what you said, I think it is likely that the kind of person with the "It doesn't affect me, so it doesn't matter" attitude is most likely to also be the kind of person who always has to have the "current thing". So although those servers would be shut down, they'd already be on the next version anyway.

Although perhaps I am being too optimistic about how much people think things through.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't think "It'll be gone forever!" is accurate.

Assassin's Creed II, the first of the always-on brigade, got an offline patch after a couple more games came out and people weren't playing it as much.

Link? Cuz as far as I know, it didn't. There are just cracks available.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/04/newsflash-ubisoft-turn-off-drm-of-legend/

http://www.shacknews.com/article/67015/ubisofts-drm-no-longer-requires

January 4th, 2011.

Why is it that when Ubisoft does something wrong, everyone knows, but when they do stuff right, no one cares or shares?

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[DoPo]

I don't think "It'll be gone forever!" is accurate.

Assassin's Creed II, the first of the always-on brigade, got an offline patch after a couple more games came out and people weren't playing it as much.

Link? Cuz as far as I know, it didn't. There are just cracks available.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/04/newsflash-ubisoft-turn-off-drm-of-legend/

http://www.shacknews.com/article/67015/ubisofts-drm-no-longer-requires

January 4th, 2011.

Why is it that when Ubisoft does something wrong, everyone knows, but when they do stuff right, no one cares or shares?

This is why we can't have nice things.

Yeah, I neither hate nor like Ubisoft (for the record, though, out of the big three publishers, I've got the most games from Ubisoft) and I know they botch stuff up all the time, still, I also know they tried to make amends...well, not really but tried to be better by removing the goddamn stupid DRM AC2 had. It was an abomination and I would have thought more people would register Ubisoft caving in.