. I like the CoD style of gameplay too. But it's been basically the same since MW. They could easily charge $15 for new maps and patch the multiplayer to its current state with a lot less work. I don't understand why people would pay that much for almost exactly the same thing in yearly iterations. The "fans" bitching about the Star Wars special editions of the 90's were idiots. It was 20 years later, and new technology allowed them to update the visual style and effects while keeping the dialogue, story, and characterization the same. The director wasn't pretending they were releasing something new, he was updating something old. All of the recent CoD iterations have been on the same console and in rapid succession.I'm guessing they like the gameplay style of Modern Warfare. Oh well.
Let me tell you a little story. Back in the late 70's a young director made a very successful film trilogy. In the late 90's, he released an updated version that had numerous extra scenes and changes.
And the fans flipped out, and threw the biggest internet wide drama queen hissy fit that made all fans of this series look like insecure, whiny, crybabies who think they own the films.
No reason for this, just something to ponder.
It's not about whether you can play the game without buying the DLC or not, it's that you paid $60 for the "full" game and didn't even get everything the developers put on the disk. It's the developer trying to squeeze extra money out of the consumer. It's more frustrating if the content they're holding back is especially intriguing or important to the game's lore.Dear god, it's not like we can play the game without buying it's DLC. I mean, what kind of psychosis is that???
Stand up for themselves. The game industry isn't exactly trending in a consumer-friendly direction.Stand up for themselves, or stand up for you?
Judging by the fan reaction, they probably hated that aspect of it, but bought it anyway.I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that the millions of people who bought this game looked at the Always online feature and thought "So what?"
Or you live in a rural/isolated area and don't have any access to internet, period. If a game can function as a single player game, there's no reason to force people to be online constantly to play it. I should also point out that younger gamers, who are still a significant portion of the market, can't always afford a decent internet connection. It's more expensive than you think if you're a student on a limited budget.That's not even very expensive. This is sensationalist crap. If you internet is cutting out, or you are losing your connection repeatedly in a game, then one of the following has happened:
1. You've tapped into a neighbour's wifi and they booted you off.
2. You have a basic internet connection shared with most people.
3. You didn't pay your bill.
I should also point out that this also puts you at the mercy of their servers- if they're the ones having an internet problem, you still suffer because you have to be connected to them to play.
Isn't that just a little frustrating/annoying? A solid game that holds up as a single player experience that's practically forbidden to you for the time being because you don't have a consistent internet connection? I can understand online validation and other such things, because that requires a temporary, one-time internet connection, something inconsistent wifi or public internet can usually get you access to, but there's absolutely no reason for the game to require you to be constantly online.Now, I didn't buy Diablo 3 because of the always online thing, but not because I think it's anti-consumer. Because my internet admin changes the wifi code if I so much as look at him funny. I can't garuntee an internet connection, so I don't get to play Diablo 3.
The pure number of gamers is increasing. At the current pricing levels, even what would have been a solid number of gamers not being able to purchase their products matters a lot less now because of the increased size of the consumer base. Hitting a lower percentage can still make you more money.Blizzard is the only one who suffers if someone can't play their game. That's a lost sale for them. But those lost sales have to be in a significant number to make a difference to the marketing division. Gamers with a good internet connection look at the Always Online and think "Meh, whatever."
Steam is a digital distribution service. It's necessary for you to be online to purchase, download, and activate the game. Also, once the game has been activated, you don't need to be connected to the internet to play the games. There's a difference between "connect to the internet to download this and you're done," and "you must be connected to the internet to access single player content."Do you have any games activated through Steam? Are you okay with that? If yes, then shut up about hating DRM you hypocrite!
I should also point out that I still find it annoying to have to spend time entering codes between putting the game into my system and playing it. That just punishes people who bought the game legally, since pirated copies work as soon as they're installed.