Always On-line Games

[Bismarck]

I dare say most of us would agree with this guy.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-15-were-not-always-online-games-shouldnt-be-either?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=european-daily

[Greybriar]

Thanks for sharing that, Bismarck.

I hope it isn't too late to wake up the gamers who continue to swallow all the B.S. that some PC gaming companies are dishing out.

[sandman2575]

The SimCity train wreck is truly something to behold.  It would be nice if it became an industry lesson in how *not* piss off your customer base by using an aggressive and obnoxious DRM scheme.  And yet that is probably hoping for too much...

I draw the line at 2 forms of DRM:  always online, and limited number of downloads / installs.  Fortunately, these are still the exception and not the rule to most pc game DRM.

[MIGMaster]

I wonder how long it will take before the hacks are out..... whoops! never mind - I just saw the other thread on this and its happened already.

[jim_h]

An interesting article, thanks for posting Bismark.

I could name any number of games I didn't buy because of the requirement for being online at the publisher's whim, or constantly. Multiplayer games are the only exception. Games with a single player aspect need not go online unless the owner (me, NOT the publisher!) decide to let them connect. Games with a multiplayer element should still ask permission to use MY broadband connection. I have a firewall and use it. If I'm using my phone to tether the data connection to my laptop, the last thing I want is some game on the lappy to start using it or refusing to run because I block online access to it.

The more Sim City events we endure, the more they will have to take notice. It's kind of ironic that the larger the publishing house/development company, the worse the situation seems to be. Smaller publishers and indie devs have always (not without exception - Jutland springs to mind) managed to take notice of what we want as customers. Hence, most of my gaming cash is spent with the smaller companies. I can't imagine even contemplating buying a game by EA these days, and yet it's only a few years ago they were one of my fave publishers. Their games may still be good, shame about the business model. Customers have very long memories, particularly when money to spend on entertainment is at a premium, so it only takes one example or shafting said customer to put us off a publishing house for years or forever.

I am very cynical of the gaming industry these days and increasingly so the older I get. This latest debacle about "always online" as a requirement makes me think long and hard about how much more fun and entertainment I'd get from a boardgame with the cash I would otherwise have spent on a PC game. I have a growing collection of non-drm boardgames that need no data connection to play!! All this is just the drm we all spent the last few years complaining about by another name. If they can't control us one way, they'll try to find another. And they wonder why people use copies of games.

Let's say for example I want to go on holiday, take my laptop with me and fancy playing a few games, but know I won't have an Internet connection. If a game requires online access to run or continue playing, I'm screwed. How can that be acceptable when I have paid good money to play the game?? Why should I pander to the publisher who is deluded enough to think piracy is truly lost revenue? Ok, there's probably some money lost, but it seems widely accepted now that the average Joe who gets a game copy almost certainly wouldn't have bought it anyway. So, what do I do with the game I've paid for when I want to play on holiday or in similar circumstances? Easy, I crack it. Yes, I break the law. I have done this many times with games I have legitimately purchased and will continue to do so as and when I feel the need. If it means I get to play MY game on MY terms, all bets are off as far as I'm concerned.

More irony abounds when it's the pirates who get to play the games offline and us paying customers have to jump through hoops in order to play their legitimate copy!!!

[Longdan]

A lot of my points exactly but put much better.  My law abiding instincts, while not broken, erode when it is easier to get
a pirate copy and run it than it is to be a legitimate buyer.  This is sad.  Soon it will be more FUN to get and run the pirated copy
and then what am I to do?  If you are marketing fun and somebody makes better fun ...you lose.  Those are the rules.

[Nefaro]

I am very cynical of the gaming industry these days and increasingly so the older I get. This latest debacle about "always online" as a requirement makes me think long and hard about how much more fun and entertainment I'd get from a boardgame with the cash I would otherwise have spent on a PC game. I have a growing collection of non-drm boardgames that need no data connection to play!! All this is just the drm we all spent the last few years complaining about by another name. If they can't control us one way, they'll try to find another. And they wonder why people use copies of games.

I share your cynicism with the current PC game market and all it's overblown DRM infection.  But there is a brighter side, too.  The Indie market has boomed, and many of these great indie developers & publishers are quite openly against draconian DRM and quite a few refuse to use any at all.  Considering the amount and quality of all the indies appearing lately, there is definitely much more to be happy about than not.  Unless you're only into big-name publisher titles' high-numbered sequels that all tend to be pretty much the same crap regurgitated every 18-24 months, it's an excellent time to enjoy some fresh and innovative indies, and without all the infuriating DRM.

[panzerde]

Unless you're only into big-name publisher titles' high-numbered sequels that all tend to be pretty much the same crap regurgitated every 18-24 months, it's an excellent time to enjoy some fresh and innovative indies, and without all the infuriating DRM.

Absolutely spot-on.  There's a lot of neat stuff coming out of small and indie studios right now, most of it without a lot of DRM idiocy.  As a bonus, most of these games don't require a GPU with the power consumption of my house to run, meaning that if I want to install them on a laptop or something to play when I'm away from home I can do that.

More importantly though to me, these are the games that are about things I'm interested in, but the mainstream that barfs up $60 over the latest mindless man-shooter thinks are "boring" or "has graphics like from the '90's."  You know what?  I'm even willing to pay MORE for those games than I am the latest AAA title.  I have far more hours into something like Steam and Iron or a Prosim title than I have any AAA title you could name.  I get a lot more value for my money when I buy the games from indie developers, or Slitherine/Matrix (for example).

So, keep on screwing the pooch, EA.  Every SimCity debacle just increases the market for the games I'd rather play.

[Longdan]

Now EA seems to be trying to tell us that the majority of Sim City players want to be always online.
Yeah.

[jomni]

Now EA seems to be trying to tell us that the majority of Sim City players want to be always online.
Yeah.

Yes because those who don't like to be always online did not buy the game in the first place.
Those who bought it either accept the limitation or is not bothered by it.

For me, whether the game is always online or not, my computer is always connected to the router that's always turned on.  So i'm practically always online even if I play off-line games.

But still off-line single player games are good because I can still play them (in my ultrabook) when I travel with limited access to the internet and I am not dependent on server availability.  Something I will miss in the new Sim City.