As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

"Always On" - Telling people to move is not a solution.

2456757

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    tejini wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think the reason you don't see a massive push for "more servers at launch" is related to alot of things, but ultimately it's that launch-day problems fade, launch-day sales do not.

    No matter the vocal amount of bitching you see on the internet, it seems the vast majority of buyers just wait it out. And in a week, it's fine.

    I think more people are pissed that a game like this needs to connect with servers at all. You can make arguments for this kind of DRM for something like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 but for a game that's been known as a single player game since it's inception and throughout it's sequels that it boggles the mind why they chose to go this route.

    Even casual players may find themselves frustrated when they realize that they can't play this single player game because of server issues plus the fact that Amazon pulled it for a bit may signal that EA truly did go a little to far this time around.

    Yeah, I totally get the bitching with Simcity because why is Simcity an always-online game, wtf? Even gamers should be floored by this. Your average Simcity buyer will not even understand wtf is happening.

    Elvenshae
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I feel like the video game industry is the only one I've run across where when a company sells a defective product, there is a sizeable number of people saying "well you bought it, you had it coming! Complaining about it is wrong!" Instead of "wow that's shit, they have every right to be upset!"

    I was upset with this shit back in Bioshock, especially when the online DRM "forgot" I had activated it and I couldn't ever activate the game again to play it (so I ended up with a coaster until they patched out the online activation step). Yes, this means I literally had an unplayable piece of software for several months that I had legitimately bought.

    I was upset with this shit when Ubisoft starting ramming it into their PC single player games.

    I was hugely upset with this shit when Blizzard added it into Diablo 3.

    I was upset with this when EA did this with Sim City.

    When I told people "Man this sucks balls and I am not going to buy Diablo 3/Sim City/PC Ubisoft games" anymore I got "Oh man, it's totally going to be different this time and you are complaining about nothing" and then the games come out and it's "Dear God, this game doesn't work at all for X reason/timeframe and these guys are ripping us off" I just go "Whatever, I did try to tell you".

    So yes, there is definitely a little bit of that in my posts and I know I come off as a goose because of that aspect, but people should get angry. They should say this is unfair. They should say "I am absolutely upset[/i]. And then they should say I am not going to buy products with this DRM anymore and make sure they know why.

    But they won't. Instead it will be like this.

    When I told people "Man this sucks balls and I am not going to buy [insert company] game" anymore I got "Oh man, it's totally going to be different this time and you are complaining about nothing" and then the game come out and it's "Dear God, this game doesn't work at all for X reason/timeframe and these guys are ripping us off" I just go "Whatever, I did try to tell you".

    Maybe places like Polygon, instead of making their reviews a joke and a moving target, shouldn't be awarding a 9.5 to a game that turns out to be utterly broken on release due to the DRM (they have subsequently edited their game to a 4 for the record). I'm really impressed with the outlets that chose to wait and see how the DRM worked out, then review them (like Gamespot, who awarded Sim City a 5.0 due to the DRM) instead. If the game isn't working on release, reviews should reflect that and I feel the pitfalls of this kind of software should be absolutely clear. There are so many examples, so much angst over multiple places on the internet that your argument people "Didn't know" is assinine. They should know and if someone doesn't know, there should be a genuine attempt to try to get people informed about why online only DRM is poor on release (as mentioned, it tends to fix itself after a week at worst in most cases). Otherwise it will keep happening and the people with the power to change it are those who buy these games in the first place.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    815165SynthesisElvenshae
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    Listen, it's clear what happened here with the release of Sim City. Companies aren't "learning" because not only do people blindly buy these games, but because the solution in this case isn't worth pursuing.

    These online games could have relatively smooth launches, but that'd require infrastructure that would only realistically be used at launch - once the amount of simultaneous users stabilizes, only a fraction of what was necessary would remain so.

    So, the company just shoves out the game with only enough resources as will be needed later,and then hems and haws about how it's tough and they weren't ready for the large numbers and they're working on it, knowing fully that the problem is self-correcting. Plus, they already have your money so, well, fuck you very much.

    This will only get worse as always-on grows, and launch "problems" will just be expected and gamers will accept it.

    That's not strictly speaking true, i mean unless a company is pants on head retarded their game servers will just be virtualized in a cluster, for a big company like EA it would be logical to have the extra power, assign it to say simcity when it launches, then when interest in simcity has died down swap em over to whatever game is currently releasing next for launch, switching like that isn't a big deal, and large corps do it all the time for critical infrastructure, it's just they don't care enough to implement it, it's easier to piss people off for a week or two.

    Yeah, they could easily get some cloud space from Amazon or whoever (I think they may even do this now) but scaling it up and down is just plain unnecessary when it will have zero effect on your early sales and what you have will be adequate within a week or two.

    I also don't like "victim blaming" here but, well, we already know that publishers have no incentive to change their behavior no matter how many people complain if it doesn't affect the bottom line.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

    I don't see why that's unfortunate. In time, this will pass. Either the online-DRM will be removed or the servers will stop shitting the bed. I don't see why the score should be based on "how the game server didn't work at launch" rather then "how the game plays".

  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    No, it absolutely isn't and for me I never even noticed the slightest amount of "online focus" in Diablo or Diablo 2.

    Sim City took the concept of regions and desire for some kind of multiplayer from previous games (people have been asking for MP in Sim City for some time btw), then turned that into the focus of the game up front. Sim City is now every bit a multiplayer only game as Blizzard made Diablo a multiplayer only game. You can't accuse me of disliking turning my purely single player experience into a multiplayer only one in defending the horrible DRM that Diablo 3 had, while simultaneously trying to claim Sim City shouldn't be multiplayer as people loved to play it single player. Apparently the future of games is to make them "social" and "connected all the time" regardless of what people did and didn't do with them originally.
    shryke wrote: »
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

    I don't see why that's unfortunate. In time, this will pass. Either the online-DRM will be removed or the servers will stop shitting the bed. I don't see why the score should be based on "how the game server didn't work at launch" rather then "how the game plays".

    Because "how the game plays" relies on a multiplayer orientated metagame and online features. Why is it wrong to reflect in the score how reliable these things are, like what Gamespot did awarding it a 5.0. They praised the gameplay but pointed out it's currently non-functional. Precisely what a review should be.

    Let's put it another way, if a game was released with game breaking bugs should reviewers review the game "based on how it plays" or based on how it should theoretically play after a patch?

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I feel like the video game industry is the only one I've run across where when a company sells a defective product, there is a sizeable number of people saying "well you bought it, you had it coming! Complaining about it is wrong!" Instead of "wow that's shit, they have every right to be upset!"

    Be honest though. How many other industries to you pay as close attention to as video games?

    And for my part, yes, people have the right to be upset, but there's been plenty of examples for people to foresee this problem. Then they act surprised when it happens. Yes, it's a problem that shouldn't exist. But again, the launch day / week woes are easily avoidable by the consumer if they exercise some patience. That's not a solution, it's a work-around. If this upsets you, I apologize, but I'm not changing my position on that.

    Aegeri
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    I bought over seventy games last year and they all worked the day I bought them.

    Plenty of people aren't going to mentally make the distinction between games that don't have on,one DRM and games that do. Either because they aren't informed or they just don't think like that.

    It's shitty to blame the people who were told they could buy a working product and then didn't get one. Because that's what releasing a product is. By putting that game on shelves, you are sending the message to the consumer that this is a game that is ready and works and if you buy it you can play it. If it doesn't work? Then the customer has been lied to, essentially. Just because you caught the lie doesn't mean a customer who didn't is the one at fault. The one who is lying is the one at fault.

    Mr RayElvenshae
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    "Always on DRM games" and the general population of "Games" are not the same thing by a long shot. They are very different in an important way and people need to quickly realize that means "Will have a damn good chance of not working at all on release for a few days to a week".

    But as always, Gabe and Tycho have an appropriate comic for this situation:

    i-9cXZC54-950x10000.jpg

    Pretty much what we've been discussing.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Lanrutcondesc
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I bought over seventy games last year and they all worked the day I bought them.

    Okay, stop right there - of those 70, how many of them have the same DRM solutions and clout - as a series - as strong as SimCity? Because I'm guessing not many.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Aegeri wrote: »
    "Always on DRM games" and the general population of "Games" are not the same thing.

    To you they are not the same.

    To a lot of people they basically are.

    LockedOnTarget on
    SCREECH OF THE FARGMr RayElvenshae
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Well they are going to learn very quickly that they aren't and they should have done their research first as to what the little "This game needs a constant online connection" means (but given Ubisoft have been fucking that up for multiple games now, many people should know to be leery of that - especially when Blizzard promptly failed last year).

    The question will how are people going to respond? By buying the next one and complaining all over again in a way like the sonic cycle, but for DRM in games or will they be all "lol nope, not buying that on release day"? Because it's going to be the response that matters.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I blame always on DRM on piracy. What's the best way to ensure people can't steal your game? Require them to connect to your server to play, just like an MMO.

    I don't know enough about the new SimCity to make a judgement on it's particular always on connectivity. My interest in it has only peaked because a couple of my friends were raving about it (when it was working). Googling it just leads me to stories where people are bitching about it without talking about what features it offers. For an MMO it obviously adds a lot of value. For a game like this that has a very clear single player mode? For a game that, historically, has been single player? It really doesn't make sense from a consumer standpoint. For the company producing it though? It bites pirates right in the ass and that's why it exists.

    That is why we can't have nice things and voting with your wallet does absolutely dick. Gamers are by and far the weakest willed consumers out there. We flock to the stores to snatch up the latest game like junkies grabbing their next hit. I hate that analogy because it degrades our "status" but there's no other comparison I can draw. Regardless of how much we hate X or Y or Z feature or the company that produces it, we will buy whatever they're shilling. It's like voting for the Green Party (or Marijuana Party, etc). It might be great in principle, you're flexing your democratic rights, but the millions of other fuckwits voting for the major parties make it nothing more than farting into the wind.

    Everyone says they want change, but very few of us are willing to give something up to get it.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Henroid wrote: »
    I bought over seventy games last year and they all worked the day I bought them.

    Okay, stop right there - of those 70, how many of them have the same DRM solutions and clout - as a series - as strong as SimCity? Because I'm guessing not many.

    That's beside the point, though.

    The point is that there is a general understanding in the industry that if a game is out, you can buy it and it works. Sim City and Diablo are games with shitloads of recognition. There's going to be lots of people that buy these games on the name alone. Lots of people that are going to go into them with the same expectations they have for every game they buy. Lots of people that as far as they know they have no reason to expect anything other than a game that works. You guys are taking your industry knowledge for granted. I myself didn't even know this had an online DRM scheme until this all went down, and I follow gaming news pretty damn closely.

    People are going to see there is a new Sim City game and buy it because hey, a new Sim City game. And when that product doesn't work, we should be shaking our fingers at EA for releasing a broken product, not the consumer who had every right to expect a working game.

    LockedOnTarget on
    DelmainMuddy WaterSCREECH OF THE FARGMr RayElvenshaeSoggybiscuit
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I blame always on DRM on piracy. What's the best way to ensure people can't steal your game? Require them to connect to your server to play, just like an MMO.

    Actually there is another purpose, to improve chances of releasing DLC for the game and stopping the mod community from doing so. Previous Sim City games have a rather vibrant modding community and this game's architecture pretty much stops that dead. So if they're going to sell extra tilesets, monuments, buildings and the theorized larger land plot sizes (apparently in the game but insert flimsy excuse about not running on poorer hardware here) blocking modding is a good way of doing that. Given this is EA "We find gamers are enjoying and embracing our microtransactions" I would fully expect that to be a happy side effect of what they are doing as well.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    Ragnar DragonfyreDelmain
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Well they are going to learn very quickly that they aren't and they should have done their research first as to what the little "This game needs a constant online connection" means (but given Ubisoft have been fucking that up for multiple games now, many people should know to be leery of that - especially when Blizzard promptly failed last year).

    The question will how are people going to respond? By buying the next one and complaining all over again in a way like the sonic cycle, but for DRM in games or will they be all "lol nope, not buying that on release day"? Because it's going to be the response that matters.

    See and it's pretty shitty to blame the customer for "not doing research" when most gamers are used to not having to do research to know if a game that is officially released is actually ready for release.

    "Research" has not been a requirement for the hobby to that degree for decades, outside of some base knowledge about what carts will run on what console. The industry has cultivated an environment where people can reasonably expect that a game on shelves means a game that will work as long as you have the system for it. So when things like these happen it takes the consumer completely by surprise. And no, it is not nearly a common enough occurrence yet that the majority of people should "know better" yet.

    shrykeOneAngryPossumAPODionysusMuddy WaterMr RaySnork
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    If the goal was to prevent piracy, then they have failed utterly, as the cracked game seems to be available in all the usual places - or at least some guy on Slashdot says.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    I seem the recall the Slashdot claim being false.

    The thing is this isn't like an Ubisoft game where it's a single player game with the access locked to it by DRM, it's a game that is designed around being connected to their servers, like Diablo III is.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I bought over seventy games last year and they all worked the day I bought them.

    Okay, stop right there - of those 70, how many of them have the same DRM solutions and clout - as a series - as strong as SimCity? Because I'm guessing not many.

    That's beside the point, though.

    The point is that there is a general understanding in the industry that if a game is out, you can buy it and it works. Sim City and Diablo are games with shitloads of recognition. There's going to be lots of people that buy these games on the name alone. Lots of people that are going to go into them with the same expectations they have for every game they buy. Lots of people that as far as they know they have no reason to expect anything other than a game that works. You guys are taking your industry knowledge for granted. I myself didn't even know this had an online DRM scheme until this all went down, and I follow gaming news pretty damn closely.

    People are going to see there is a new Sim City game and buy it because hey, a new Sim City game. And when that product doesn't work, we should be shaking our fingers at EA for releasing a broken product, not the consumer who had every right to expect a working game.

    The thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's that I'm trying to make a very specific narrow point. It's basically "general consumer" and "informed consumer, aka people like you and me." Everything I've said about foreseeing the complications applies to the latter.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I bought over seventy games last year and they all worked the day I bought them.

    Okay, stop right there - of those 70, how many of them have the same DRM solutions and clout - as a series - as strong as SimCity? Because I'm guessing not many.

    That's beside the point, though.

    The point is that there is a general understanding in the industry that if a game is out, you can buy it and it works. Sim City and Diablo are games with shitloads of recognition. There's going to be lots of people that buy these games on the name alone. Lots of people that are going to go into them with the same expectations they have for every game they buy. Lots of people that as far as they know they have no reason to expect anything other than a game that works. You guys are taking your industry knowledge for granted. I myself didn't even know this had an online DRM scheme until this all went down, and I follow gaming news pretty damn closely.

    People are going to see there is a new Sim City game and buy it because hey, a new Sim City game. And when that product doesn't work, we should be shaking our fingers at EA for releasing a broken product, not the consumer who had every right to expect a working game.

    The thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you, it's that I'm trying to make a very specific narrow point. It's basically "general consumer" and "informed consumer, aka people like you and me." Everything I've said about foreseeing the complications applies to the latter.

    But you have different degrees of informed, too.

    Like, I didn't know about the online DRM at all. I almost bought this game at launch but went for Tomb Raider instead. Had I bought it I would have been completely surprised.

    And even if I knew about it, I only knew about one other game with serious launch issues, Diablo. One game probably wouldn't have been enough to make me pause. Things like Bioshock and Ubisoft didn't register with me at all because I played those games on consoles and they weren't super huge stories like D3 was.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    No, it absolutely isn't and for me I never even noticed the slightest amount of "online focus" in Diablo or Diablo 2.

    Sim City took the concept of regions and desire for some kind of multiplayer from previous games (people have been asking for MP in Sim City for some time btw), then turned that into the focus of the game up front. Sim City is now every bit a multiplayer only game as Blizzard made Diablo a multiplayer only game. You can't accuse me of disliking turning my purely single player experience into a multiplayer only one in defending the horrible DRM that Diablo 3 had, while simultaneously trying to claim Sim City shouldn't be multiplayer as people loved to play it single player. Apparently the future of games is to make them "social" and "connected all the time" regardless of what people did and didn't do with them originally.

    Then you weren't paying any attention at all. Diablo 2 was like "Battle.net! Play on it!". You could say no, but they were very big on throwing the idea in your face. Like, fucking Battle.net was created and first launched to work with Diablo. The Diablo series has always pushed a connected, online element.

    Simcity has never been about multiplayer or online.


    shryke wrote: »
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

    I don't see why that's unfortunate. In time, this will pass. Either the online-DRM will be removed or the servers will stop shitting the bed. I don't see why the score should be based on "how the game server didn't work at launch" rather then "how the game plays".

    Because "how the game plays" relies on a multiplayer orientated metagame and online features. Why is it wrong to reflect in the score how reliable these things are, like what Gamespot did awarding it a 5.0. They praised the gameplay but pointed out it's currently non-functional. Precisely what a review should be.

    Let's put it another way, if a game was released with game breaking bugs should reviewers review the game "based on how it plays" or based on how it should theoretically play after a patch?

    What metagame? It's fucking Simcity. This is closest to a bug and even then the analogy doesn't completely work because bugs aren't "It plays fine and then sometimes the game won't load for a few hours" or something that will be fine in a week or two. MMO reviews aren't generally "Game servers were laggy on launch day. 5/10" for exactly this reason.

    Call that my "expert" opinion based on dealing with many games with this shit. It will pass.

    The stupid part here is that Simcity has this shit in the first place.

    shryke on
    815165
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    The only reasonable way to look at this is as if the game was a car (YES, I AM GOING THERE). If you bought a car and it wouldn't even turn on to leave the dealer's lot, yeah, you'd not only expect your money back, you'd get a profuse apology from the dealer. If he refused to give you a refund, you'd sue his ass and win so hard that you'd end up owning half the dealership.

    The DRM scheme of Simcity just doesn't even matter in this respect. Always-on DRM is simply a stupid and draconian way for publishers to force what they want on consumers under the guise of "fighting" piracy (have fun modding Simcity when EA will ban you for a modified game, because no way is EA going to let you add value to a game without trying to sell that added value to you for way too much), but that's a secondary issue. The primary conflict is that a) people bought a game and b) the game was broken. Ergo, they should be automatically entitled to a refund. It shouldn't even be a matter of debate, because you can't sell people broken shit and then tell them to shut up when it doesn't work.

    But between the nonsense of this, D3, and Ubisoft's incredible always-on DRM failures, it should be pretty obvious by now that always-on DRM is just fucking stupid, objectively. It doesn't stop piracy at all and is simply a massive hindrance to putting out a good product.

    Ninja Snarl P on
    LockedOnTargetEdith UpwardsDelmainElvenshae
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    The new Sim City does have a metagame. Cities in the same region basically effect each other. The game is designed around the idea that different players will have cities in the same region.

    Edith UpwardsDelmain
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    The only reasonable way to look at this is as if the game was a car

    We have the worst habits discussing shit sometimes.
    If you bought a car and it wouldn't even turn on to leave the dealer's lot, yeah, you'd not only expect your money back, you'd get a profuse apology from the dealer. If he refused to give you a refund, you'd sue his ass and win so hard that you'd end up owning half the dealership.

    The DRM scheme of Simcity just doesn't even matter in this respect. Always-on DRM is simply a stupid and draconian way for publishers to force what they want on consumers under the guise of "fighting" piracy (have fun modding Simcity when EA will ban you for a modified game), but that's a secondary issue. The primary conflict is that a) people bought a game and b) the game was broken.

    I hate to do this but technically the game wasn't broken. It was inaccessible, which (especially when you enter the legal realm) is vastly different. Which is precisely what these people hide behind when it comes to reasoning their side of it. But to an extent, they're right. People aren't buying faulty products, they're buying things they can't access on demand. The last ten years have been chaotic and governments have failed to keep up in a changing paradigm of business.

  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    No, it absolutely isn't and for me I never even noticed the slightest amount of "online focus" in Diablo or Diablo 2.

    Sim City took the concept of regions and desire for some kind of multiplayer from previous games (people have been asking for MP in Sim City for some time btw), then turned that into the focus of the game up front. Sim City is now every bit a multiplayer only game as Blizzard made Diablo a multiplayer only game. You can't accuse me of disliking turning my purely single player experience into a multiplayer only one in defending the horrible DRM that Diablo 3 had, while simultaneously trying to claim Sim City shouldn't be multiplayer as people loved to play it single player. Apparently the future of games is to make them "social" and "connected all the time" regardless of what people did and didn't do with them originally.

    Then you weren't paying any attention at all. Diablo 2 was like "Battle.net! Play on it!". You could say no, but they were very big on throwing the idea in your face. Like, fucking Battle.net was created and first launched to work with Diablo. The Diablo series has always pushed a connected, online element.

    The original Battlenet for Diablo was basically a chat room that allowed you to access match making with people online. It turned into a rampant vipers nest of cheaters and most people who used it played privately with people they knew (god knows what you'd end up with otherwise). At the time, I never used Battlenet very much at all, because I played with someone over a modem. Something the original game also supported and LAN play was also big at the time, same in Diablo II.

    You know, the LAN play option that was hugely popular that they completely removed from Diablo III. So I frankly don't buy this argument. I viewed playing the game Single Player as an essential feature and they destroyed that with the online DRM.

    That's why I didn't buy it, but I did keep my promise of getting it for my mom. Because I am awesome.
    Simcity has never been about multiplayer or online.

    For me, neither was Diablo or Diablo 2. When they were, they were using options that never used Battlenet.

    I am not finding your argument convincing, because they are pretty much doing to their fanbase what IMO Blizzard did to theirs. "Here are a bunch of entirely unwanted multiplayer features, to ram these up your asshole we're making the game always online in the interest of making more money from the RMAH (diablo 3)/microtransacting things (Sim City)". It's pretty blatant and obvious why they are doing this - outside of combating piracy/cheating/whatever else.

    They even used basically the same arguments that Blizzard did in needing to be connected, keeping cheating down and making a more "social" experience.
    shryke wrote: »
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

    I don't see why that's unfortunate. In time, this will pass. Either the online-DRM will be removed or the servers will stop shitting the bed. I don't see why the score should be based on "how the game server didn't work at launch" rather then "how the game plays".

    Because "how the game plays" relies on a multiplayer orientated metagame and online features. Why is it wrong to reflect in the score how reliable these things are, like what Gamespot did awarding it a 5.0. They praised the gameplay but pointed out it's currently non-functional. Precisely what a review should be.

    Let's put it another way, if a game was released with game breaking bugs should reviewers review the game "based on how it plays" or based on how it should theoretically play after a patch?

    What metagame? It's fucking Simcity. This is closest to a bug and even then the analogy doesn't completely work because bugs aren't "It plays fine and then sometimes the game won't load for a few hours" or something that will be fine in a week or two.[/quote]

    The metagame they made to justify the online only nature of the game and the multiplayer aspect (which apparently when it works, can work extremely well).

    And some bugs on release get patched pretty soon after. Do you think reviewers shouldn't assume buggy software will stay that way for very long and rate the game on what it theoretically plays like, or how it plays like on release.

    That's a pretty important distinction. Everyone knows that online DRM problems are a temporary thing, but so are many game breaking bugs and issues that can be patched shortly after release. Should reviewers be reviewing the game with an eye towards that issue being fixed quickly or not?

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Henroid wrote: »
    The only reasonable way to look at this is as if the game was a car

    We have the worst habits discussing shit sometimes.
    I only do it because I'm a horrible person.
    If you bought a car and it wouldn't even turn on to leave the dealer's lot, yeah, you'd not only expect your money back, you'd get a profuse apology from the dealer. If he refused to give you a refund, you'd sue his ass and win so hard that you'd end up owning half the dealership.

    The DRM scheme of Simcity just doesn't even matter in this respect. Always-on DRM is simply a stupid and draconian way for publishers to force what they want on consumers under the guise of "fighting" piracy (have fun modding Simcity when EA will ban you for a modified game), but that's a secondary issue. The primary conflict is that a) people bought a game and b) the game was broken.

    I hate to do this but technically the game wasn't broken. It was inaccessible, which (especially when you enter the legal realm) is vastly different. Which is precisely what these people hide behind when it comes to reasoning their side of it. But to an extent, they're right. People aren't buying faulty products, they're buying things they can't access on demand. The last ten years have been chaotic and governments have failed to keep up in a changing paradigm of business.

    I don't think it's a matter of technicality at all. Did somebody purchase the game? Did they attempt to play it after it was release, downloaded, and installed? Were they able to play it?

    Because if they can't play the game, for any reason that has to do with the publisher/developer screwing something up, then the game is broken. "Inaccessible" is meaningless, because the product they purchased simply does not function. If it was a car (MUAHAHA) and the doors were welded shut, the gearshift glued in place, and the wheels welded to the axles, you wouldn't say the car is "inaccessible", you'd say it was a "useless piece of shit" because it does not work. Technically, yes, all the parts to make the car turn on and do stuff is there, but you can't use any of it so the car is broken.

    The reason the game doesn't work is just entirely irrelevant. Can't play the game you paid for equals game is broken equals refund. You could have a team of lawyers spinning that all day long, but one guy saying "the game did not work as advertised and was non-functional to the consumer" is all it takes to shut that down hard.

    Ninja Snarl P on
    SCREECH OF THE FARGElvenshae
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    No, it absolutely isn't and for me I never even noticed the slightest amount of "online focus" in Diablo or Diablo 2.

    Sim City took the concept of regions and desire for some kind of multiplayer from previous games (people have been asking for MP in Sim City for some time btw), then turned that into the focus of the game up front. Sim City is now every bit a multiplayer only game as Blizzard made Diablo a multiplayer only game. You can't accuse me of disliking turning my purely single player experience into a multiplayer only one in defending the horrible DRM that Diablo 3 had, while simultaneously trying to claim Sim City shouldn't be multiplayer as people loved to play it single player. Apparently the future of games is to make them "social" and "connected all the time" regardless of what people did and didn't do with them originally.

    Then you weren't paying any attention at all. Diablo 2 was like "Battle.net! Play on it!". You could say no, but they were very big on throwing the idea in your face. Like, fucking Battle.net was created and first launched to work with Diablo. The Diablo series has always pushed a connected, online element.

    The original Battlenet for Diablo was basically a chat room that allowed you to access match making with people online. It turned into a rampant vipers nest of cheaters and most people who used it played privately with people they knew (god knows what you'd end up with otherwise). At the time, I never used Battlenet very much at all, because I played with someone over a modem. Something the original game also supported and LAN play was also big at the time, same in Diablo II.

    You know, the LAN play option that was hugely popular that they completely removed from Diablo III. So I frankly don't buy this argument. I viewed playing the game Single Player as an essential feature and they destroyed that with the online DRM.

    That's why I didn't buy it, but I did keep my promise of getting it for my mom. Because I am awesome.

    Oh, so the LAN option was hugely popular too? I guess people loved playing it in a multiplayer fashion. Crazy. Along with all that B.net stuff you mention, it's almost like the game has always had a strong multiplayer component.

    Look, you can't even keep from contradicting your own argument. The Diablo series, from day one, had a multiplayer element that only got stronger and more robust. D3 just look the next, incredibly unsurprising step along that path.

    Simcity? Simcity has never had much of anything to do with multiplayer.

    And some bugs on release get patched pretty soon after. Do you think reviewers shouldn't assume buggy software will stay that way for very long and rate the game on what it theoretically plays like, or how it plays like on release.

    That's a pretty important distinction. Everyone knows that online DRM problems are a temporary thing, but so are many game breaking bugs and issues that can be patched shortly after release. Should reviewers be reviewing the game with an eye towards that issue being fixed quickly or not?

    The important distinction is the one another poster makes above:
    The game is not broken, it's inaccessible.

    Again, you don't see MMOs getting shitty reviews because of launch-day lag. Fucking Diablo 3 didn't even get slammed for that in reviews.

  • LanrutconLanrutcon The LabyrinthRegistered User regular
    edited March 2013
    I blame always on DRM on piracy.

    You should be blaming it on the allmighty dollar.

    Lanrutcon on
    Capture.jpg~original
    Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
  • Ragnar DragonfyreRagnar Dragonfyre Registered User regular
    edited March 2013
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Aegeri wrote: »
    I would point out that Diablo 3 IMO is more than a single player game in the same way that Sim City is. The fact is you can justify anything to be "multiplayer" by forcing down features that require other players into the game despite what someone wants. I never played Diablo 2 online, in the entire time I had the game. Yet why is it that suddenly a game I enjoyed for many hundreds of hours Single Player is now a "Multiplayer game" the second the company feels the need to ram restrictive online only DRM into it? And for the most flimsy reasons at that I should add.
    Scosglen wrote:
    Coop multiplayer has always been a huge aspect of the Diablo games, and the most vocal and diehard fans of those games almost invariably played them primarily on battle.ne

    Man I had no idea I wasn't a diehard fan of Diablo or Diablo 2. I only played them for hundreds of hours and got one of every single class to the maximum level on hardcore. Guess I never liked those games because I didn't play them multiplayer at all. Except for the odd time on a LAN with my mom (ironically) or when I used to play the original Diablo over a 28.8k modem.

    Man, this is just silly goose sillyness. You could play D2 offline, I sure as fuck did. But that game was way more online focused then Simcity has ever been. The transition to online-only for D3 was completely unsurprising.

    No, it absolutely isn't and for me I never even noticed the slightest amount of "online focus" in Diablo or Diablo 2.

    Sim City took the concept of regions and desire for some kind of multiplayer from previous games (people have been asking for MP in Sim City for some time btw), then turned that into the focus of the game up front. Sim City is now every bit a multiplayer only game as Blizzard made Diablo a multiplayer only game. You can't accuse me of disliking turning my purely single player experience into a multiplayer only one in defending the horrible DRM that Diablo 3 had, while simultaneously trying to claim Sim City shouldn't be multiplayer as people loved to play it single player. Apparently the future of games is to make them "social" and "connected all the time" regardless of what people did and didn't do with them originally.

    Then you weren't paying any attention at all. Diablo 2 was like "Battle.net! Play on it!". You could say no, but they were very big on throwing the idea in your face. Like, fucking Battle.net was created and first launched to work with Diablo. The Diablo series has always pushed a connected, online element.

    The original Battlenet for Diablo was basically a chat room that allowed you to access match making with people online. It turned into a rampant vipers nest of cheaters and most people who used it played privately with people they knew (god knows what you'd end up with otherwise). At the time, I never used Battlenet very much at all, because I played with someone over a modem. Something the original game also supported and LAN play was also big at the time, same in Diablo II.

    You know, the LAN play option that was hugely popular that they completely removed from Diablo III. So I frankly don't buy this argument. I viewed playing the game Single Player as an essential feature and they destroyed that with the online DRM.

    That's why I didn't buy it, but I did keep my promise of getting it for my mom. Because I am awesome.
    Simcity has never been about multiplayer or online.

    For me, neither was Diablo or Diablo 2. When they were, they were using options that never used Battlenet.

    I am not finding your argument convincing, because they are pretty much doing to their fanbase what IMO Blizzard did to theirs. "Here are a bunch of entirely unwanted multiplayer features, to ram these up your asshole we're making the game always online in the interest of making more money from the RMAH (diablo 3)/microtransacting things (Sim City)". It's pretty blatant and obvious why they are doing this - outside of combating piracy/cheating/whatever else.

    They even used basically the same arguments that Blizzard did in needing to be connected, keeping cheating down and making a more "social" experience.
    shryke wrote: »
    The unfortunate thing about the Polygon score change is that whatever the original score was will be what metacritic goes with, so that 9.5 is there for good.

    I don't see why that's unfortunate. In time, this will pass. Either the online-DRM will be removed or the servers will stop shitting the bed. I don't see why the score should be based on "how the game server didn't work at launch" rather then "how the game plays".

    Because "how the game plays" relies on a multiplayer orientated metagame and online features. Why is it wrong to reflect in the score how reliable these things are, like what Gamespot did awarding it a 5.0. They praised the gameplay but pointed out it's currently non-functional. Precisely what a review should be.

    Let's put it another way, if a game was released with game breaking bugs should reviewers review the game "based on how it plays" or based on how it should theoretically play after a patch?

    What metagame? It's fucking Simcity. This is closest to a bug and even then the analogy doesn't completely work because bugs aren't "It plays fine and then sometimes the game won't load for a few hours" or something that will be fine in a week or two.

    The metagame they made to justify the online only nature of the game and the multiplayer aspect (which apparently when it works, can work extremely well).

    And some bugs on release get patched pretty soon after. Do you think reviewers shouldn't assume buggy software will stay that way for very long and rate the game on what it theoretically plays like, or how it plays like on release.

    That's a pretty important distinction. Everyone knows that online DRM problems are a temporary thing, but so are many game breaking bugs and issues that can be patched shortly after release. Should reviewers be reviewing the game with an eye towards that issue being fixed quickly or not?

    Reviewers should always review the product as is, since that is what is currently being sold. If I'm reading a review, I want to know what to expect when I boot that game up when I get home.

    If that reviewer feels nice enough to go back and update his review once said issues have been fixed, then that's his decision but completely optional. Otherwise, companies releasing broken products should be prepared to sleep in the bed they made.

    Ragnar Dragonfyre on
    steam_sig.png
    frandelgearslip
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I have regrettably allowed myself to get excited for something and never considered the contrary positions to it. And we're seeing the dark side of it. It all started with Call of Duty.

    I've said this a lot recently, but the next battleground of the video game industry is services provided. Usually when I talk about it I'm referring to XBL and the PSN. But there's other things like Origin, or IWNet. These are all relatively new things, even if XBL and PSN are longer established. They're still new. So when you have a new product out, you want branding to be strong. You want people to know your thing is the best. And in all fairness to business, there's nothing wrong with that.

    But the approach counts, and the ugly head has turned to show us what this means for video games, at least for the initial foray. Rather than build up heavy incentives to use these services and platforms, the industry is heavy-handedly forcing the consumers to partake in it. In ten years, as fast as this whole thing changes, things will probably be better. Or we can hope. But for the last console generation, and this includes the PC during the same years, we've seen an industry grow in a lot of ways faster than consumers and supporting industries can handle. And always, always, always the consumer is punished for it.

    This isn't about fighting piracy, as other people have noted. This is about social media. And even then it's not about social media, it's about forcing something and doing that forcing in a very dumb way. Electronic Arts wants this to be their moment to stand up and say, "Look at how SOCIAL we have made video games." Which isn't a bad thing to want to approach (I keep having to make this clarification, I hope people get it), but it's being handled with no regard to practical measures or what complications consumers will come across, let alone the frequency.

    I brought up the IW Net / Call of Duty thing because it was done specifically to structure a community that the developer/publisher could manage directly. When they wanted to start community support, to start brand recognition, they for whatever reason concluded that absolute control of every layer of the game was a necessary measure. We recognize it alright, because we're given no choice. It's about control, and Electronic Arts has fashioned itself a throne in the same manner.

  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    I will remember that. These game breaking bugs dont render it broken, just inaccessible.

    You have missed my point on Diablo mp. My point was that many played it offline single player or LAN both gone in Diablo 3 due to the DRM. This was a shitty thing to do and what was the benefit to the consumer in doing so? An auction house the designers admit fucks the game balance? Very little benefit that I can see.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Yeah, the control angle is what is especially wrong with always-on DRM. To make a non-car analogy, imagine if EA published the next Elder Scrolls game. It wouldn't matter to console users, but can you imagine just how incredibly shitty it would be to have always-on DRM for a game like Skyrim that prevented you from every modding it? DRM that forced you to only use packs released by the publisher? Because that's the sort of thing EA is doing here, not protecting against piracy. This sort of approach is trying maliciously squeeze as much money as possible from the consumers while giving as little as possible in return by making it so they can never do anything with the game but what the publisher graciously allows them to do.

    The one major upside for this is that this behavior is letting midde- and lower-rung developers shine, as well as highlighting publishers who don't attempt to do this incredibly shitty nonsense. I think the game indsutry has reached a critical mass where we will never again see the likes of a 1980's-style industry-wide crash, but I definitely think we'll see the short-sighted and narrow-minded massive publishers like EA and Activision crash hard when they've got nobody left to feed off of. Then when they go, other publishers and developers will fill the void, hopefully having learned something about how to stay in business by keeping the customers happy instead of actively abusing them.

    Ragnar DragonfyreMr RayElvenshae
  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    The important distinction is the one another poster makes above:
    The game is not broken, it's inaccessible.

    Again, you don't see MMOs getting shitty reviews because of launch-day lag. Fucking Diablo 3 didn't even get slammed for that in reviews.

    To be fair to Diablo 3, they had 1.5 milliion preorders, with launch day sales projected to match that. Then they tacked on a million extra purchases to that, because they are Blizzard and know they always underestimate the frenzy. And they still did an extra 50% day one purchases. Diablo 3 getting bitched at for the servers being down is just silly, because the servers did work, and I (as one of the people that got on) played the fuck out of that game the first few days. And by the weekend the servers were more or less fine overall.

    Hell, D3 should be the shining example of always online DRM working. Yeah you may hate the fact you don't have offline mode, but it has a RM Auction house tied to it, and has been remarkably hack free, compared to D2, which was god fucking awful. The servers have been available 99.95% of the time the game has been live, and knowing Blizzard, they will probably still be running when my as yet unborn children are in high school. And that's not even getting into Blizzard handing out practically free authentication to enhance security. Now, none of that helps D3 had shitty writing, and broken balance and content at launch. But as a model of online only DRM, as consumers, we should be praying that the other companies do it as well as Blizzard does. Because my experience with Ubisoft and EA has led to being unable to authenticate, disappearing games off accounts, and even being unable to access old accounts because there was no way to retrieve my password.

    Always online is shitty as most companies do it. But it does have it's place. That place is not with fucking SimCity and Farcry 3 though.

    shrykeSCREECH OF THE FARG38thDoe
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    FarCry 3 wasn't always online.

    I had it at launch and it was a Uplay copy and I played the whole thing offline.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    One last thing about that whole control angle - Remember that there's an arrogance to this too. When Facebook's apps (specifically video games on it) exploded into success, the makers of those games had this arrogant attitude that they were doing humanity a great service (this was the actual spoken sentiment of at least one person for some company that I unfortunately can't remember). But the concept that humanity or video games are being done a great service because of that online / social aspect hasn't gone away, despite the Facebook bubble bursting. Hell, look at all the websites that have that same bunch of four icons for you to get social, be it an article you're reading or a message you're sending or option you're ticking.

    The difference is, in web design, it's optional. EA's push is to make it mandatory on their own closed network. Which is hilarious because EA is the most notorious company for shutting down game servers. The entire social side for SimCity is going to literally disappear when access to the game disappears too.

    AegeriElvenshae
  • AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    There are some people playing Sim City mostly fine since release as well. It doesn't mean the DRM worked.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    You have missed my point on Diablo mp. My point was that many played it offline single player or LAN both gone in Diablo 3 due to the DRM. This was a shitty thing to do and what was the benefit to the consumer in doing so? An auction house the designers admit fucks the game balance? Very little benefit that I can see.

    That's not what they said btw. The game has an auction house that doesn't fuck the game but does drastically effect how people play because they use it so goddamn much. It's also mostly-hack-free, unlike previous efforts and the system serves to integrate the entire game under one umbrella. Everything is Battle.net now which is really useful for some shit. All the multiplayer or single-player you want is still there too. D3 is a natural extension of D2's battle.net integration.

    Simcity's online thing is ... just strange. Makes little sense for the game.

  • SichoSicho Wellenstein, Luxembourg, EuropeRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »

    Simcity? Simcity has never had much of anything to do with multiplayer.

    but why is it that everybody thinks that the game is not ALLOWED to go in a multiplayer-only direction, just because it was always single player? Why this sense of entitlement? "I always played it like this and it has to stay like that for evaaaaarrr!!!11" In my opinion, the creator of a game can do all the f he wants with his series, if he wants the next iteration to be an MMO or something, it's his right to do so.

    Unreal was single-player. Unreal Tournament wasn't. And there is a reason why SimCity is not called SimCity 5. It's a reboot and it's a whole, new, "other" game. The new Tomb Raider isn't really like the previous ones either ...

    So people should just accept that this new SimCity is really like an MMO and nothing like SimCity 4. If they don't want that, they just have to come to terms with it and don't buy it. Hell, they have SC4, SC3K, 2K and the original SC to play, if the want the "old" experience. I'm always playing some SNES SimCity now and then. But I can accept that the new one is another kind of game and therefore, I don't really see the always on as DRM, because for me, it's an online-multiplayergame and not a single-player game with added online constraints and DRM. It's just the nature of THIS SimCity game that calls for servers and internet and multiplayer.

    "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    Sicho wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »

    Simcity? Simcity has never had much of anything to do with multiplayer.

    but why is it that everybody thinks that the game is not ALLOWED to go in a multiplayer-only direction, just because it was always single player? Why this sense of entitlement? "I always played it like this and it has to stay like that for evaaaaarrr!!!11" In my opinion, the creator of a game can do all the f he wants with his series, if he wants the next iteration to be an MMO or something, it's his right to do so.

    Unreal was single-player. Unreal Tournament wasn't. And there is a reason why SimCity is not called SimCity 5. It's a reboot and it's a whole, new, "other" game. The new Tomb Raider isn't really like the previous ones either ...

    So people should just accept that this new SimCity is really like an MMO and nothing like SimCity 4. If they don't want that, they just have to come to terms with it and don't buy it. Hell, they have SC4, SC3K, 2K and the original SC to play, if the want the "old" experience. I'm always playing some SNES SimCity now and then. But I can accept that the new one is another kind of game and therefore, I don't really see the always on as DRM, because for me, it's an online-multiplayergame and not a single-player game with added online constraints and DRM. It's just the nature of THIS SimCity game that calls for servers and internet and multiplayer.

    Except the game as it is can totally be played single player. You don't have to share a region with anyone. Multiplayer is not the only way to play.

    The game doesn't force you into being in the same world with others so why not allow the player to play in an offline mode?

    SCREECH OF THE FARG
This discussion has been closed.