Snotnarok said:
It's not even potential, if you look at the PSN currently the service under goes maintenance, now that'd be a time you cannot play games Diablo 3 still has outages and such.
Of course.
Perhaps I should have included something else, like a degree of "tolerance", because it's unreasonable to assume all services are going to be up 100% of the time.
I get why MMOs do it because, well their games ARE online and social, I hate them but I do get it.
However a shooter or RPG? No, no a thousand times no. It doesn't make sense and their reasoning doesn't work, to stop piracy, to allow social features, to keep games updated.
1- Pirates will get it, they will have a better experience
2- Social features? In Diablo 3? You mean gold bots trying to sell gold? No one wants to talk and if they are they're using skype/steam
3- keep games updated? Steam/origin/uplay does that enough.
1- The practical goal isn't stopping piracy, but delaying the inevitable long enough for the game to sell; which, for most games, sales happen in a fairly short window (~3 weeks). Longer for something getting raving word-of-mouth reviews.
(Skyrim, Borderlands 1, spring to mind)
Incidentally, this is also related to the increasing emphasis on multiplayer, which serves to keep legitimate customers playing past that 3 week window (mostly to extend exposure for attachment, and thus microtransactions, but also to keep them away from their competition's games. This is why Call of Duty dominates sales every year, despite the market being absolutely flooded with wannabes).
2- Yup. "Social interaction" with the general public is largely a facade for most games. Most people I play with in "public" multiplayer games are either raving bonkers or dead silent, with the occasional goofster here or there.
Sometimes, you get a courtesy chat if something happens, but it's extremely infrequent mostly because people are concentrating on playing the bloody game.
3- Agreed. And it doesn't even have to be that specific "always-online" service that provides the updates. Steam often just points to the publisher's official servers, if they aren't contracted to host mirrors themselves.
In any case, there is no practical reason for update systems to require more than a periodic check.
Y'know. Like everything else. (OSes, Drivers, Software, Browsers, plugins, gadgets...etc)
MikeSmith70 said:
Microsoft should come out and quell the rumors already.
Unfortunately, they aren't, and it's starting to seem like they have something to hide.
On one hand, they could just be waiting for the buzz on the PS4 to die down, so they can keep the spotlight focused on them.
Microsoft wants the "thunder" all to themselves when they do announce the Durango officially.
But on the other hand, the evidence is leaning towards that Always-Online nightmare.
First, the software in the Durango Dev Kit. This confirms that the tech already exists, and is in the hands of every major publisher at least.
Second, the fact that Ubisoft has picked now of all times to publicly flip back to supporting Always-Online DRM once again following a big stink about it from the Orth debacle. Even after it bit them in the ass years ago.
Microsoft must know about the bad buzz surrounding Always-Online, and its horrid track record so far; not even Blizzard could get it right Day 1, and outside of Steam, I cannot think of another company with as much practice in massive server procurement and management among the AAA publishers as Blizzard.
I can only assume that MS's refusal to confirm or deny the rumors is either aversion to an explosion of negative press, or that they are indecisive on the matter. After Orth's comments, PR is running scared.
EDIT: Oh, the spambots are getting cheekier, and employing the edit button. Still, my points about why M$ isn't responding stand.