The loss of functionality cannot be considered "evolution" if that term used to describe a form of improvement. But I'm guessing at the context here.Shamus Young said:
A more accurate description would be "rationalizing" or "marginalizing" the impact of the loss of offline single player to a player's experience. For some, it's no big deal or even nominal.
But the trap I so commonly see now is when some of these players start telling others who ARE effected by these changes that their arguments are invalid and they should support the game anyway.
(Or the flipside argument where the people complaining are telling those who aren't effected to not buy the game.)
Every year, it it appears that more of the Big Publishers have made it their proverbial "Manifest Destiny" to turn mainstream gaming into a total-control opt-in service that they can milk repeatedly for years.Shamus Young said:
This change is something I directly oppose because it *WILL* lead to higher costs (primarily for the consumer) and decreased incentive for competition; as the ultimate goal becomes that to further monopolize the player's time (this keeps their players away from their competitor's services, and stymies the development of alternatives).
That, in turn, ultimately creates new trends for business to directly interfere with the quality of the player's experience (something we're already starting to see). Concepts such as grinding and unnecessary-forced-inconvenience (which takes a variety of forms; product placement springs to mind) will become more common compared to challenge, story/presentation and mechanical execution.
Of course, it cannot replace everything, but you can expect MANY more of these elements to pop up if the publishers ever do move into that "service-only" gaming medium they dream of.
