Epic's Fortnite May Require Always-On Internet

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Not surprised at all. Cliffy B is an asshole and I've come to expect this from assholes.

 

[Falterfire]

I think he's underestimating the hatred gamers have for always-online. The only reason they put up with it for Diablo III is because, well, it's DIABLO. Blizzard could've just put a handful of wint-o-green lifesavers in the box, labeled it 'Diablo III' and sold five million copies.

It's kinda like Origin & Mass Effect 3: Nobody actually likes Origin. It just happens to be the only way to get Mass Effect 3. If an indie game dev tried to release on only Origin, they'd be committing suicide.

If <Insert Game I'm Really Looking Forward To> was online-only, I'd probably stomach it just to get more of my fix, but if it's a property I'm not invested in, it's not worth the trouble. I'll just go find a game that is also fun but doesn't constantly stare at me in case I blink in a non-approved manner.

 

[Saulkar]

Hey everyone!!! Guess what! There is this brand spanking new technology that has been being developed behind closed doors! It is called LAN! I know right? It actually allows you to connect to other computers without the need of the internet. Contact Epic, they need to know!

 

[teebeeohh]

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

tf2 is always online and that is not an MMO *duck*
this would upset me if i hadn't decided to never buy epic games after they didn't release gears 2 on the PC

So all those hours training with bots was just my imagination?

Huh.

Hou are PARTIALLY correct you need to be online to access your backpack, the ManCo store and get weapon drops. But you can still play with bots and the vanilla weapons offline.

so you also watch pron for plot and characters, right?

in all honesty, i didn't even know tf2 had bots

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

so you also watch pron for plot and characters, right?

in all honesty, i didn't even know tf2 had bots

What?

What does pron have to do with always online games?

I find the bot practice a good way to learn the maps without letting any team-mates down and way to still play when the internet goes down.

In short removing the choice of off-line play reduces the playablity of a game. Not to a large degree for game like Fortnite and Team Fortress 2 but people pefer a choice, even if they don't use it.

 

[NLS]

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

tf2 is always online and that is not an MMO *duck*
this would upset me if i hadn't decided to never buy epic games after they didn't release gears 2 on the PC

So all those hours training with bots was just my imagination?

Huh.

Hou are PARTIALLY correct you need to be online to access your backpack, the ManCo store and get weapon drops. But you can still play with bots and the vanilla weapons offline.

TF2 didn't have bots to begin with though, it was an extra feature that was added long after release.

OT: Most multiplayer games are always online. And if this is being developed with co-op in mind, then why is that so bad then?

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

tf2 is always online and that is not an MMO *duck*
this would upset me if i hadn't decided to never buy epic games after they didn't release gears 2 on the PC

So all those hours training with bots was just my imagination?

Huh.

Hou are PARTIALLY correct you need to be online to access your backpack, the ManCo store and get weapon drops. But you can still play with bots and the vanilla weapons offline.

TF2 didn't have bots to begin with though, it was an extra feature that was added long after release.

OT: Most multiplayer games are always online. And if this is being developed with co-op in mind, then why is that so bad then?

As I stated in the post above, the ability to choose whether to be online or not.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Oh look, more recycled comments drawing this way out of proportion. Happy days.

"Fortnite may require always online"

 

[Azuaron]

Epic is trying to get the love of pc gamers with this game... by calling them all criminals.

I don't feel like supporting companies that think treating the customer like a criminal is good business. If there is a single player mode the game has no business requiring me to be online to play it. Hell, even EA gets this right, and they seem to be doing their very best to screw over the customer in every way possible.

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

...but the final decision will have more to do with the game's co-op gameplay than with a fear of pirates.

Permalink

Sounds like a load of crap to cover their asses

Yeah... no.

If they're making a co-op game, it's going to be always online. It's going to be. It's going to be always online. It's the easiest way to do it, and smaller developers have to keep to their costs down.

"But if it HAS single-player..." but nothing. It won't "have single-player"; it will allow you to play a multiplayer game by yourself. Which just makes YOU sad, like if you played Starcraft as the zerg with no opponents and your "goal" was to cover the entire map with skin (I've totally never done that. Really. Stop looking at me like that.)

For instance, Arkham Horror. Great board game. Technically, it says one person can play it. It's got all the rules and everything. But I'll never play it alone because 1. The game will kick my ass 2. It would make me a sad, sorry man who couldn't find any friends and, most importantly, 3. It wouldn't be any fun.

So quit your moaning about DRM and piracy because it's not about that, it's about technical and development limitations and the type of experience they want their players to have. So if you're going to get a co-op game, get a co-op game. Get this game, whatever. But you're going to have to be online.

And if you don't want a co-op game, then go buy a single-player game.

 

[koroem]

Awesome. Epic says they are going back to the PC because it is the next gen, pretending like they respect pc gamers, then WAM! Decide to treat us all like criminals. Amazing choice there guys. Probably going to avoid this game now if single player requires a login/auth server.

 

[Duckman]

Yeah... no.

If they're making a co-op game, it's going to be always online. It's going to be. It's going to be always online. It's the easiest way to do it, and smaller developers have to keep to their costs down.

"But if it HAS single-player..." but nothing. It won't "have single-player"; it will allow you to play a multiplayer game by yourself. Which just makes YOU sad, like if you played Starcraft as the zerg with no opponents and your "goal" was to cover the entire map with skin (I've totally never done that. Really. Stop looking at me like that.)

For instance, Arkham Horror. Great board game. Technically, it says one person can play it. It's got all the rules and everything. But I'll never play it alone because 1. The game will kick my ass 2. It would make me a sad, sorry man who couldn't find any friends and, most importantly, 3. It wouldn't be any fun.

So quit your moaning about DRM and piracy because it's not about that, it's about technical and development limitations and the type of experience they want their players to have. So if you're going to get a co-op game, get a co-op game. Get this game, whatever. But you're going to have to be online.

And if you don't want a co-op game, then go buy a single-player game.

Oh boy! I was waiting for someone to say something stupid!

Also want to point out that because of stupid ways of thinking like this, developers have it in their minds that multiplayer is enough to sell a game.

Otherwise, I don't have anything else to add. Deviate already did a good job explaining the ways.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Aaannnddd...fuck you epic.

Once again you take something that could be good and just shit all over it with stupid decisions.

 

[mirage202]

Reason #2 not to support Epic by buying this game.

Thanks Epic, you keep making this easier and easier to ignore what had potential to be great!

 

[Dogstile]

And cue everyone crying about how requiring an always-on connection ruins games.

Cue a vocal minority of spineless gamers crying about how, "This will totally not set a bad precedent for PC games. Like, we know we said the exact same thing with Ubisoft and Blizzard, but third times the charm right gaise??

Cue people taking my post too seriously and quoting me with hostile comments.

Helps if you don't make a passive aggressive comment bro.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

tf2 is always online and that is not an MMO *duck*

Something other people didn't mention is that not only can you play offline by yourself with bots, you can play offline with other people. It still works just fine over a LAN, either with one person hosting or a dedicated server (which is fully supported and distributed for free by Valve).

 

[Baldr]

What if this game plays sorta like DayZ, which is also a online zombie game?? People are condemning this before knowing all the facts.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Yeah... no.

If they're making a co-op game, it's going to be always online. It's going to be. It's going to be always online. It's the easiest way to do it, and smaller developers have to keep to their costs down.

"But if it HAS single-player..." but nothing. It won't "have single-player"; it will allow you to play a multiplayer game by yourself. Which just makes YOU sad, like if you played Starcraft as the zerg with no opponents and your "goal" was to cover the entire map with skin (I've totally never done that. Really. Stop looking at me like that.)

For instance, Arkham Horror. Great board game. Technically, it says one person can play it. It's got all the rules and everything. But I'll never play it alone because 1. The game will kick my ass 2. It would make me a sad, sorry man who couldn't find any friends and, most importantly, 3. It wouldn't be any fun.

So quit your moaning about DRM and piracy because it's not about that, it's about technical and development limitations and the type of experience they want their players to have. So if you're going to get a co-op game, get a co-op game. Get this game, whatever. But you're going to have to be online.

And if you don't want a co-op game, then go buy a single-player game.

Why do we expect the absolute minimum from these companies whose products we are paying $60s a pop for? Releasing annual games with reused assets, rushing their games for arbitrary deadlines and releasing half-finished, bug ridden pieces of crap, filling games with DRM that does very little to stop pirates playing the game and actively stops legitimate customers from playing the game and harms their experience. We shouldn't defend them, we should be always asking for more, asking for better, so they have to deliver a better experience for us, otherwise we'll just be thrown the dregs and leftovers and told they're the best thing in the restaurant, now pay up, full price y'all!

Last millenium, in the far off, ancient time of 1995, there was a company called Westwood. They released a new game called Command and Conquer, which was revolutionary in including RTS multiplayer. Back then the only way to do multiplayer was by LANing, and the company knew that not many people would know someone else who had a copy of the game. So what did they do?
They put two copies of the game in every disk That way all you had to do was find another computer to connect to. Today that idea would be ridiculed in the boardrooms. Everyone would talk of the piracy it would cause, and the damage to the bottom line, it would be seen as absolute madness, and would never be done, but they did it, and they didn't bother restricting the second disk to be a multiplayer only thing, or look about putting some DRM so it could only be used on one computer, or so many times. They gave an extra free copy of the full game to anyone who bought it, because they wanted to give their customers the best gaming experience possible.

That is what I want my gaming companies to be like. That is the standard I hold them to, and it may be unrealistic, or downright impossible today, but if we as gamers all kept the pressure on companies to do what is best by us, not by them, then the gaming scene would be a much better place.
For us, not them. Obviously.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

Just another company to add to the black list.

Seriously, unless you're running an MMO, there is absolutely no justification for requiring always-online in your game.

This.

There was no danger of me buying a tower defense game anyway, but whenever I read "always-on DRM," my immediate response is "great, I just saved sixty bucks." It's like a reflex now.