Diablo 3 and the Future of Video Games
I still haven't played the beta (they're doing an open-to-all weekend, too) and very well might not, but there was a brief conversational thread with tashiro a few days back. His intent is to "boycott" the game because it requires an active internet connection to play. While that's his choice, I see such as the way games are going. He disagreed, pointing out he could play God of War without being online. That little conversation has bugged me, and not just because his chosen example for where games are going was a 7-year-old console title.
I mean, the fact is I don't like these developments. I want to be able to buy a game and to own that copy, to be reinstalled from disk or loaned to a friend or whatever. And in the latter case, I fully expect the game to require the disk to play, so there's only one "active copy" at any given time even if it's passed among multiple people over a period of time.
But that just isn't the direction that I see, and I think my larger sample size gives me a better view than tashiro in the matter. Several recent PC games I've picked up "require an internet connection for product activation." They tend to even go beyond that, making use of one of the big online services to regularly run and be bound to. It's a means of copy protection (though someone, somewhere will crack just about any such attempts) and it discourages the used-game market, which game companies seem to see as a threat to their own sales. On top of that, publishers are pushing more and more digital downloads - they're cheaper than physical copies, though become dependent on online access and authentication rather than saving disks.
I first ran into this as a problem with Fallout: New Vegas. It links in with a Steam account, so when I went to loan it to a friend, he couldn't play it as he didn't have my Steam login information. Since then, this seems to be coming standard for major titles. DXHR and Skyrim were both on Steam. Mass Effect 3 is on Origin. To some extent, they can be played in offline mode, but their default behavior is to make a connection to the online service, verify licenses/DLC, and then start in on the game. And all of these are big-name single-player games (though ME3 does have a multiplayer component).
I'm not as certain with the state of current console games, but I have no doubt they're moving in the same direction. It's not uncommon for me to turn on my PS3 and be prompted to download an update for the game I have in there - so the system is at least checking status without actually asking me. X360 users who want to play ME3 multiplayer apparently have to have an XBox Live account. Smaller/older games are available for paid download frequently.
So while I don't like what I see, it's hard for me to be up in arms about what seems to be a pretty clear trend. For MMOs, it's inherently a requirement. And while Diablo 3 isn't an MMO, it's a lot closer than many games between its auction house functions and the high multiplayer appeal. While you could theoretically play it just as a single-player game, you'd be missing out on a lot of features. I don't really see a lot of point in holding the required internet connection against the game, I'll judge it by how much I enjoy playing.
But then, I'm not paying for it directly anyway.
I mean, the fact is I don't like these developments. I want to be able to buy a game and to own that copy, to be reinstalled from disk or loaned to a friend or whatever. And in the latter case, I fully expect the game to require the disk to play, so there's only one "active copy" at any given time even if it's passed among multiple people over a period of time.
But that just isn't the direction that I see, and I think my larger sample size gives me a better view than tashiro in the matter. Several recent PC games I've picked up "require an internet connection for product activation." They tend to even go beyond that, making use of one of the big online services to regularly run and be bound to. It's a means of copy protection (though someone, somewhere will crack just about any such attempts) and it discourages the used-game market, which game companies seem to see as a threat to their own sales. On top of that, publishers are pushing more and more digital downloads - they're cheaper than physical copies, though become dependent on online access and authentication rather than saving disks.
I first ran into this as a problem with Fallout: New Vegas. It links in with a Steam account, so when I went to loan it to a friend, he couldn't play it as he didn't have my Steam login information. Since then, this seems to be coming standard for major titles. DXHR and Skyrim were both on Steam. Mass Effect 3 is on Origin. To some extent, they can be played in offline mode, but their default behavior is to make a connection to the online service, verify licenses/DLC, and then start in on the game. And all of these are big-name single-player games (though ME3 does have a multiplayer component).
I'm not as certain with the state of current console games, but I have no doubt they're moving in the same direction. It's not uncommon for me to turn on my PS3 and be prompted to download an update for the game I have in there - so the system is at least checking status without actually asking me. X360 users who want to play ME3 multiplayer apparently have to have an XBox Live account. Smaller/older games are available for paid download frequently.
So while I don't like what I see, it's hard for me to be up in arms about what seems to be a pretty clear trend. For MMOs, it's inherently a requirement. And while Diablo 3 isn't an MMO, it's a lot closer than many games between its auction house functions and the high multiplayer appeal. While you could theoretically play it just as a single-player game, you'd be missing out on a lot of features. I don't really see a lot of point in holding the required internet connection against the game, I'll judge it by how much I enjoy playing.
But then, I'm not paying for it directly anyway.
Console games that require on-line components from EA (Mass Effect 3, every sports title in their line) have an On-line DRM code that comes with the game that you have to input after you run the game. If you wish to play the game used, you have to go to EA's on-line store and throw $5 at them for a new DRM code. Effectively nullifying the discount from the used market (At least when a new game first becomes used. The longer a game has been out for, the cheaper the used price, typically.)
ReplyDeleteMmm. And that code probably binds to your default account. Does it require verification when you install/first run or every time you try to run it (ie. can you play said games without your console connected to the internet)? I was trying to recall for the Arkham Asylum games and Uncharted 3, which are probably the most recent console games I played and I don't remember specifically. But I still feel that's the way things are going if they're not already there.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of initial run I believe. Then in your saved games file it effectively toggles a switch that says "This game is registered to this system/Hard Drive" From then on you could play off-line to your heart's content. As for Steam, it does have an "off-line mode" to let you play games already installed, though you have to run Steam first, letting it do whatever, then telling it, "I want to play off-line"
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing is stupid. What about people who don't have internet connections? Paul's PC doesn't have internet - so suddenly he's not allowed to play video games?
ReplyDeletePretty much? Stupid or not, most major video games these days are being designed with online in mind. It is not a correct assumption that all would-be gamers have connections, but that's not stopping the industry because a large enough percentage do. It's like designing games for Windows PCs, but not Macs, or no longer designing games for DOS, or expecting certain minimum specs. Designers/publishers have to decide where the cutoff is for putting effort into smaller portions of the market. And right or wrong, technology marches on and internet connections are common enough that they're becoming one of those base assumptions past which it "isn't worth it." Of course, there will always be some hold outs, mostly among smaller developers and publishers, but I'm convinced we've already passed the point where major games that are completely playable offline are in any sort of majority. And if that is an entire basis for you to choose not to get/play a game, that's certainly your choice, but my ultimate point is you're ruling out a high-and-increasing percentage of new games with that decision.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, having internet be mandatory is just nuts. The game looks perfectly fine without an internet connection - what does an internet connection provide for solo play that NOT having one wouldn't? And yes, most people have internet connection. Most also have to pay for bandwidth, so why ensure that they have to chew up bandwidth to play these games? Almost every game I play on the PS3 doesn't need internet. D3 isn't an MMO, solo play should be fine without it. Yes, I can accept 'advance in technology / minimum specs', because of advances in processing power and the demands it takes to make a 'modern' game, but internet is not a must-have yet. People can and do use the computer with no internet connection, or with very limited internet. So, I think they're effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Oh, hell, perfect example - if they allowed LAN, I could play with Paul and Cat and Francois in the same house, without hosing internet, but if we all want to team up online, that's suddenly a HUGE jump in how much bandwidth we're chewing up, thus raising my internet bill.
ReplyDeleteRe: your last line. Yes, I am. And I'm willing to do that, too. If I see no reason for the game to require a persistent internet connection, then I see no reason to buy the game if it's something I want to play solo or with my wife.
ReplyDeleteWell, the most "legitimate" reason I can think of is requiring an active connection would let them keep some data server-side and thus give a whole lot more power to protect against things like item-duping. And given that they're allowing real money in the auction house where you can sell stuff you find in your play-through to others, an exploit like that would be a nightmare. And... uh... hmm... I guess I don't know what deals are like across the continent, but I have never (at my current or previous ISP) paid a per-bandwidth fee.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest complaint from a practical (rather than principle) standpoint has less to do about the people who lack internet connections to begin with and more to do with the fragility of requiring an always-on, active connection: If it breaks, you're screwed to some degree. If disconnected in an MMO, things keep going. If disconnected in Diablo 3... uhh... you have to restart the chapter/checkpoint and lose any progress you made and/or items that may have dropped and not been collected.
ReplyDelete