Why Online Play Is Ruining Gaming

Nik Wood writes on why he thinks that the internet has had a negative effect on gaming.

[Nitrox]

"Games are released with terrible bugs that are eventually sorted out by updates, that require… an internet connection."
^^^
Only valid point in the whole article, the relatively few other arguments he gives just make him sound whiny.

I personally play very little online with the exception of a little BF or COD here and there. I used to do the mmo thing too for awhile until I wised up and got sick of the amount of time and money you have to sink into them.

But my point is, even though I'm not much of an online gamer myself I've never felt that online gaming was (in any significant way) harming the industry, let alone any the games that I like. Not sure how this guy gets that impression...

[Legionaire2005]

Now there is free to play MMO games that don't require a monthly fee, that why I am glad I didn't buy DC Universe when it first came out. Premium MMO games like Guild Wars 1 and 2 you don't have to pay a monthly fee and the DLC is optional like a require game for example. Ya I agree this dude is a whinner lol !!! He fail to realize that Nintendo is more of a gaming system than 360 or PS3, cause they don't rely too much on multi media content, making their consoles cheaper.

[coryok]

your console wouldnt be any cheaper if they didnt put multimedia features into it. these features are cheap and easy to make and give the console a lot more functionality

the only price you have to pay for multimedia is through a subscription based models (such as live, everyone paying for live is paying like a 700% markup of what it should actually cost in engineering terms), if sony or microsoft didnt put these in, they would save money, not you (on the hardware).

nintendo doesnt have many multimedia features in their console right now because of their rigid hardware design, which i assure you, will be changed with their next console

[MaxXAttaxX]

But IMO all the best games I've played have been single-player experiences.

[hellvaguy]

Nintys "superior gaming free platform" has horrible online play, crappy fps controller, and subpar graphics. You get what u pay for.

Free MMO's are not even close to as good as paid ones. Garbage is free, Subway is not. Im paying to eat at Subway. You can have the free stuff.

[Legionaire2005]

I'm getting so much disagree because people take the Nintendo thing I said out of context!!! I'm saying Nintendo Wii is more of a game console cause rely on multi media. That it is cheaper than any console and it, it not HD.

[Nitrowolf2]

""Games are released with terrible bugs that are eventually sorted out by updates, that require… an internet connection."

I'm sorry but isn't that to be expected? I mean it's not like games on PS2 were perfect even when playing online. I'm glad we have patches to fix issues that were never fixable before.

also while I know there are people without broadband connection, it just seems like a stupid point really. It's starting to become a standard feature in today's world. Businesses are beginning to eliminate the need for papers and job applications can now be filled online.

Nearly all games available today can all be played offline. PC is a different story because for most cases if you have a PC then you probably have internet connection. But almost all games I have on PS3 can be played offline, all but Warhawk, MAG, and DC Universe (from the ones I own)

[ACEMANWISE]

@Nitrowolf2

"I'm sorry but isn't that to be expected? I mean it's not like games on PS2 were perfect even when playing online. I'm glad we have patches to fix issues that were never fixable before."

I've played video games since the 1980's and it has never been as it has gotten today. Sure you've gotten games with bugs here and there but they had to make sure it worked or it could mean huge losses in recalls of a title. Just look at Beyond Good and Evil on PS2. One known glitch and they dropped the price to 9.99 within months of release.

[Nitrowolf2]

You have to remember though that games back in the 80's -90's weren't full of 3D models and all worked on a 2D plane. There were occasional glitches even on those games, but the shift from 2D to 3D models, of course more glitches should have been expected.

Good and Evil didn't have Online.

If you have an issue with online play then at least use a game that is actually online play.
the HD remaster is different and I really don't think leader boards should qualify as something that anyone needs, even if they have online.

seems to me that your issue isn't with online play, but just the whole concept of how there are more bugs and issues with today games then there were with games from the 80's to late 90's

[Legionaire2005]

Yeah like Star Wars Knight of the Old Republic 2 for the original Xbox and PC. That game was too buggy!!! and they never patched it?

[jony_dols]

The more graphically advanced games become, the harder it is to iron out all the kinks. The major studios and publishers have massive teams of play testers, but unfortunately even then, some slip through the cracks.

[FunkMacNasty]

I don't think online gaming is ruining the industry in the same way that the author does. I think that the overwhelming popularity of online console gaming in the past 5-7 years has led devs and publishers to skirt what once was the pinnacle of gaming: The single player story portion. Think back to the last generation of gaming (ps2/original Xbox era). Most games that released sold themselves on fun gameplay, and above all else an interesting story/characters.. Some games had online MP, but nothing really substaintial because online play didn't really get off the ground and become popular (on consoles anyway) until this gaming generation.

I'm not saying that there aren't still great games with awesome single player campaigns this generation, but the further we move into this generation the more the focus becomes on the Multiplayer online portion of a game, and we've all seen many games suffer from this online-focused formula. Recent examples i can think of where the campaign could've told a great story, but was instead left in the box as a short, rough sketch while we got a shiny polished multiplayer game instead: Homefront, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, MW2, MW3, Black Ops...

[Armyless]

I would love to see a Vita version of Realm of the Mad God.

[Kahvipannu]

Quote: Nitrox
""Games are released with terrible bugs that are eventually sorted out by updates, that require… an internet connection."
^^^
Only valid point in the whole article"

Not really, it just seems how people have forgot that back in days games got relesed broken too, but there was no way to fix the problems. Also games were a lot smaller and simpler by theyr structure so there was far less things to bug.

I never understand this statement, for example Skyrim, yes it had some weird bugs (and still has) on launch, but who really expected it to be flawles? The game is freaking enormous, you really can't compare it to f.ex. games back in "off-line" era's PS1 and 2 titles, which as I stated had bugs too. Ofcourse there is games that are really broken at launch *cough, COD, cough*, but that isn't becouse of the possibility of patching up it later, reasons are usually elsewhere.

From "news article":
"In the end, online gaming will alienate the people who can’t afford broadband, people who prefer to physically own something as opposed to digitally, and people who don’t want to suffer verbal abuse."

This sounds more like personal problem, not the cause of online-gaming. All I hear is *whine whine and whine* in more polite manner. Maybe he should play other games? Play local mp with friends, or games that have friendly community? It's not hard to use common sense here.

You can't afford broadband? Well then you obviously don't play online, lol. Play offline-games, or do something that you can afford if gamong is too expensive hobby for you... I don't get this..

You want physical copy? Well propably you can have one if you want, it's just present time that it's more practical to sell games online as digital copies, and most indy/small studios can't really reach the consumers/or take the costs with physical copies these days.

All personal rant I don't like this so it has to be bad with no context. So I would say he had no valid points, internet is one of the best things that have happened to gaming, for consoles it is rather limited and new thing still, but example for PC the possibilities are endles... Tought DRM stuff and such are ****, that I agree, but for those we can thank pirates, nuff sayed.

Who aproves this stuff here?

[Nitrox]

I don't expect games to be flawless upon release, but take a look at how common it is for a game to have a patch available day 1.

This is proof that Devs are taking advantage of this gen's online connectivity and patching as a way to publish a game that is unfinished, and use the extra time before the street date to fix a few last minute details that they already knew needed to be ironed out.

This can be a problem for people without their system hooked up to the net because in every sense, they are getting an unfinished game out of the package.

[hellvaguy]

Obviously games are far more complex than in past years (not sure how thats not obvious to anyone without a lobodomy), but additionally devs keep pushing graphic boundaries with very outdated tech in consoles. Theres going to be a consequence and something has to give in terms of more glitches and bugs until the next gen of hardware can provide some relief.

[Kahvipannu]

Yes, there is day 1 or day two, or similar patches, and I think they are ok. Industry isn't the same again, the money and devlopment times are way longer/bigger than back in days, competition is bigger, and so on.

Every day of development, rather than having the game out costs enormous sums of money, and not always the devs can do much about it if publishers pressure to get the game out. It's not that black and white.

This I agree that it is problem to the people who don't have internet connection, but it's 2012. Come on, if you don't have one, it's personal problem, not a problem in the industry.

[dedicatedtogamers]

Now, I'm mainly a single-player (or on-the-couch multiplayer) gamer, so keep that in mind...

Online gaming is the future. Sure, some things need to change. Some things need to grow and evolve. But think about Demon's/Dark Souls. Those games could be played completely solo, but you would still feel the influence of other players. Star Wars Old Republic is an MMO, yes, but it can also be played - more or less - solo and you can experience a halfway decent story. I anticipate Guild Wars 2 will also be much the same way.

The problem is World of Warcraft. Because it's such a success, everyone imitates it, but WoW is a 7-year-old game. It's ancient. The online game model needs to evolve beyond WoW instead of copying it.

[ACEMANWISE]

Demon's Souls is an excellent way to seamlessly make a single player game multiplayer without changing the main function of the single player experience. It's exactly how they should have implemented online gaming but didn't. Suprisingly many people consider the online aspects archaic because they couldn't choose their friends to play with. They just didn't get that anonymity was key to the theme of the game.

[Bimkoblerutso]

@dedicateddtogamers

THAT is very true. The whole aesthetic needs to change drastically. SWTOR was reasonably fun through my first level 50, but the story only did so much.

Sure, it's a passable story for an MMORPG, but given the strict, WoW-inspired structure of the modern day MMORPG, developers are never quite going to pave over the fact that players are operating in a very static world almost completely free of any player-related influence...unless things change.

[ACEMANWISE]

Online gaming changes the reasons why we play a video game. It is for competitive reasons followed by the emerging cooperative mode. In either case online is social based. It creates an environment of immediate gratification using one's primitive emotions of dominance over another. I, for one, play online but prefer single player or co-op campaign mode that follows a storyline. It can cause impatience, which is a huge detriment to the single player mode.

Online will cause the destruction of ownership and the destruction of the meaning of a name. Games get chopped up, rehashed, and repackaged. My biggest hope for online this generation was that the consoles could do it better than the PC. Consoles were always a representation of stability over technology until they all went online.

I don't appreciate being mislead into thinking the games I purchased digitally are mine. No matter which way they slice it the terms and conditions say otherwise. Since when does the terms "buy", "own", or "ownership" NOT mean what the dictionary defines them as? Yet that is what is stated in PS3/360 terms. They are basically telling you that they have the right to mislead you by having a buy button. I could go on and on about the issues with online based gaming but I won't. I'd be here for quite awhile.

[Blaine]

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I just want to play devil's advocate a bit, in terms of digital distribution. I like it for its convenience and, while I'm not 100% familiar with the terms I agreed to upon purchasing them, you can't deny that they've proven fair so far.

I've purchased a lot of PS1 classics from the PSN store. I played them on PS3 first then, when I bought a PSP, I played them there too. If I bought a Vita, I could play them on that too. My point is, games on disc could not have been shared so easily across 3 platforms like that.

So short-term, it's great. Problem, yes, is long-term. If the PSN Store drops games I've bought, it's possible I may have lost those purchases. But no one knows what's going to happen long-term. It's entirely possible that DD proves to have more longevity than physical copies, making it both better in the short-term and long-term.

[ACEMANWISE]

They have proven fair, yes, but only because the gaming population is aware and vocal when they try to abuse it. They will persist in an attempt to break our will because they want to have their way.

The bottom line is this. If you can accept the conditions that everything you buy online will eventually be lost due to online control and you have no issues with it being a glorified rental service, then everything is fine.

The main issue I have with this is the fact they sell their online services as a form of ownership. They have purposely led the public to believe they own the stuff they "buy" and have gone through great lengths to make sure you need a servide to access your games. It wasn't until recently when Sony and Micro updated their terms to cover themselves, quite foolishly I may add, by stating in the terms that the words "buy", "own", and "ownership" do not mean what they state. Can't help but laugh at such a claim but that's what they are claiming. Yes I understand that we are given a "license" to use their software but it is actually worse than that because now there is another barrier standing between you and your games. Service. Now a service "sublicenses" a video game which really means you play because they are a service. Once the masses find out this is a rental service masked as a store the word will go around.

Note: I'm a game collector but I went on the PSN store looking at PS1 titles. Did you know they sold 20,000 digital copies of Final Fantasy VII at 9.99 each. That's 200,000 dollars for a game released two generations ago. Now I have the original physical copy in my hand as we speak. Do you think they want ownership if they can resell an old title then end the service while selling it all over again in the future? In their eyes I just cost them 9.99. Imagine if the PS3 ends their service like the original Xbox Live and then sells all your games again using a different service in the near future. Wouldn't you be pissed? Trust me they're going to do it. Why do you think they ended PS2 compatibility on the PS3? Answer? So they can sell it to you on PSN as a digital title or remake it in HD.

[Blaine]

Well, that's all possible.

Since the Vita kept the same store as the PS3 and the PSP, I guess I took that as form of evidence that it would be a lasting digital platform. But you're right, Sony may change to a "new" store alongside the PS4. It's still possible, then, that game ownership will transfer from one store to the other, especially if the community is vocal about it like you said. But you're right, it's also very possible that I, and people who bought into DD, will just lose everything so the devs can sell it to us again.

I'm going to choose to be optimist about this, though! I have no crystal ball, so all I can do is hope.

[DW74]

When Bioware decided to drop support for "legacy games", I was no longer able to even *install* Jade Empire, much less play it. There is a case of me completely losing a title because the "store"(Bioware online store) I *bought* it from decided to close up shop.

Digital distribution is a dubious venture. The only guarantee you own something is to 1)have the disc and console/pc in-hand, and 2) not be required to activate it online or have a constant online connection.

So, how many games do you "own" these days? If you are buying digitally, that number goes down all the time, whether you know it or not.

And let's not kid ourselves. The industry crashed before. It can do so again. Anything built by man can decay or die. Look at America. So if Sony or Valve gives up the ghost, how many games will you "own" both now, and in the future? I don't like where this shit is going. At all.

All of that was kinda off-topic, but in answer to the article's title: No, online-necessary gaming is ruining gaming.

[DW74]

And let me add one smaller statement yet:

A lot of older gamers talk about reasons why they will or might or have quit gaming. My reason that I may? Go ahead and release driveless consoles where games are all digital and watch me walk away for good. No company has the right to hold my shit hostage whenever they feel like it.

[Blaine]

I won't give up just yet on the day they go full digital. But if the day does come where I lose the majority of my games because a digital store closed up, then yeah, I'll walk away from gaming.

But by then I'll probably be old enough that I hope I'll be doing something better with my life! :P (No offense intended to any older gamer. I just spend too much of my time gaming at the moment that it's making me not want to keep up this hobby for the rest of my life.)

[ginsunuva]

MP games will sell more because you can't borrow friends' copies to play against them. You have to buy new ones. And most people can't wait for a price drop or buy it used because the community might die out, so they sell lots of copies right from launch.

[ACEMANWISE]

@Nitrowolf

"Good and Evil didn't have Online.
If you have an issue with online play then at least use a game that is actually online play."
"games back in the 80's -90's weren't full of 3D models and all worked on a 2D plane."

Good and Evil was a rare example of the need for online patches in an offline gaming world. Yet I can't name much else. So, I ask, is having online the solution to bugged games or is it the problem? In my experience, there are more bugged video games on release now that they have in the past

The PS1and PS2 were on a 3D plane and had no online systems in place. I can't name a video game on these systems (aside from G&E) that had noticeable bugs like we do today.

Note: Read some of my other posts here and you'll see I have many issues with online gaming.

[Kahvipannu]

Old games had tons of bugs too, and back then they couldn't be fixed. Just look for example the old 3D GTA's, they are full of them. It's like people have forgotten how broken some games were back then, or maybe people whined less and didn't care as much, now if there is little irritating bug in game it's "omg I will never play this again"...

And you really can't compare games back then to games present time, it's like comparing bicycle to car, and by that I mean by the complexity of the current games (tecnically) and by the grand sizes of them, not to mention online game and more advanced hardware.

Ofcourse there is exceptions, like CoD, five games, all with same engine, almost same game, all more or less broken, but you can't blame internet for that, since obviously the reason is somewhere else.

Online for gaming is almost 100% positive thing, negative things f.ex. DRM's and other similar thing, and piratism... Not the ability to improve/complete the games later on.

And really, why won't people just wait a bit with some releases, like Skyrim. I still haven't bought it, since I knew it will have a lot to patch when it comes out (not becouse I would think the devs are just lazy or something mambo jambo like that, but bacouse I know the game is massive), and there is still coming a lot from the modding community. IT's just unrealistic to think games like this would come out flawles, and back in days a) the game would have been a lot more simpler to be sure of everything works for release b) the game would come, and stay somewhat broken.

I just don't get those arguments "patching" has ruined gaming, no they aren't. If your (not for you, generally saying) CoD is broken every year, blame the devs that have released it 5 times broken, and have not bothered to fix it.

Now I'm of to check if there is any new cool mods to download for FO:LasVegas^^

[Adolph Fitler]

When you play Starhawk, come back & say online play is ruining gaming.
Also due to the fact that Incognito have gone against the grain/trend of selling for more & giving less, & are actually giving us more with a single player campaign....then I would say that online is pretty damn fun when I'm in the mood for a good long hard session......but I'm a single player campaign gamer through to the bone, as I grew up playing consoles that not only didn't have online, but nobody even knew what online gaming was, as it hadn't been invented yet for any home use.

Online gaming has raised the number of hack developers lazily deciding to make a half baked fps to go on the pile.
I mean, there are a heap of awesome fps's out & I own a crapload of them, & still have more to buy, like Borderlands 2, Syndicate, etc, etc....but many genres really have been overlooked on PS3....PSP has had it's fair share of them.....but PS3 & 360 platformers have been all but non-existant apart from 3 great ratchets & an ordinary one, LBP1&2, Alice:MR, & the usual PS2 HD remakes.
It seems funny that the genre that made console gaming popular, is responsible for selling masses of machines & still ensures Nintendo consoles sell reasonably well thanks to the little red jumpsuited & hatted plumber.
Every successful console has had it fair share of platforming games, & at least 1 mascot.
Sega always had Sonic (disregarding the shocking transition to 3D that I'm positive helped Sega's demise). Genesis/MD Sonic was in his hey day & many were of the opinion that Sonic had outdone Mario, I certainly think Sega outdid Nintendo with Sonic.....that is until Rare showed up with DKC.
It seems all the failed consoles had no real great exclusive platformers, or mascots to go along with them.
PS1 had Crash as the main face, even though it had a tonne more great platformers, PS2 had Ratchet, Jak & Daxter as the main 2......but PS3 really has no advertised, marketed, 3D style platformers & it is last, 360 is the same, if not more hard up for platformers & it has also been obliterated in sales by Nintendo....Nintendo, the 1 out of the 3 that has the worst, almost non-existant online gaming infrastructure, but offers more in the way of the platformer.

It goes to show that the masses don't yet care enough about online, & simply prefer FAMILY FRIENDLY FUN games that can be played by anyone of any age in the family. Jak & Daxters recent re-release & hugely impressive reviews are testament to the types of games, gamers respect & want more of....I mean, hell yes, the Starhawks, Resistance's, Killzone's, Halo's, COD's, BF's, & & BEST OF ALL Socom's still have there place in modern gaming...that is a fact no one can stop....but fact is that by the same token, a good platformer, survival horror, action adventure or whatever the genre, should always offer a single player experience for gamers who just can't be assed bothering with some annoying bunch of jerk off's online.

[urwifeminder]

For me online is keeping it alive i wont buy singleplayer games at all unless its 15 bux.

[madjedi]

Spoken like a typical fpser.

[urwifeminder]

Singleplayer sux.

[ziggurcat]

@ urwifeminder

no, CoD singleplayer "sux". try playing other games.

[madjedi]

"Singleplayer sux"

Sorry your choice in gaming is that piss poor, i have played many good singleplayer campaigns as well as coop campaigns games like r3 & borderlands.

[BitbyDeath]

Heavy Rain has no online and has to be one of the best games this gen.
You are missing out if you only play Online games.

[urwifeminder]

I like rts online games like company of heroes nice speculation that only like fps i played heavy rain it was ok the witcher2 and me3 i will play but online co op is more my thing i def would give gaming away if it was singleplayer only did that for 20 years.

[PersonMan]

I feel like they could've made Uncharted 3 longer and better if they didn't have to work on a multiplayer portion.

Speaking of Uncharted 3 multiplayer... what is it about it that doesn't make it addicting. I get super bored really quickly playing UC3 online.

I've been playing single player games lately and it's nice. No balancing issues, less rage, just pure solo fun.

Online games were fun for me at first (being able to shoot my friend virtually was pretty awesome) but after you do that about a million times, it just doesn't excite me anymore.

Also, I'm tired of being a floating camera with a gun attached to it in First Person Shooters. I also hate floating up ladders... why can't I see my hands and feet in most first person games? Killzone and Crysis got it right. You see everything you do, so you don't just feel like a camera with a gun mounted to it.

[madjedi]

Lord what a stupid article, i am more a single player gamer than a mp one, but this guy needs to shut up. Of all the good points that could be addressed with this type of article are ignored.

Good thing about the internet, all of the psn/marketplace games that would have never released if a physical copy was required.

Online is another facet of gaming, which in most shooters takes priority over the campaign.

Sorry i think expanding dev costs and bullshit capcom style dlc, is more likely to harm gaming than online ever will.

[kagon01]

Monetization and incomplete games because of it...

[a_squirrel]

And usually no local play. That's a bummer cause I used to play local games like Killzone and Halo at friends' houses.

[myps4]

Agree 100%

[Skateboard]

I like online play, but I'm a big fan of Co-op play without online more.

[BitbyDeath]

Not enough games have co-op play...

[JoeSchmoh]

I don't care I agree, it is fuking up gaming. You can't even play games you downloaded on XboxLive unless u have an internet connection. The PS3 don't do that B.S. Everything in gaming now that comes out is expected to be revolved around online multiplayer or no one buys it. They can release an update that could brick every console if they wanted too. These gaming companies are just raping these new-gen gamers with DOWNLOAD CONTENT they charge money for, when in reality it can be just put on the disc an unlockable content. And the funny part is, once you get online, people either cheat or play real cheap.

[ziggurcat]

i've been arguing for years that there's way too much emphasis on MP this generation.

think of how much better those blatantly singleplayer games would be if they didn't have mediocre MP functionality tacked onto them.

[DW74]

I'm looking at you, Mass Effect 3.

They can just say "well we increased the size of the team for the multiplayer stuff, so the singleplayer didn't suffer". But I can turn right around and say that they could have used those extra people to build more content for a fitting finish for Shepard's romp through the galaxy.

The CoD fanboys(and fanboys of all types) who weren't around last generation, or the ones before it, just can't understand that great gaming does not NEED multiplayer. I don't need some douchebag from the internet howling and breathing and yelling in my ear every second I play a game. Halo 2 really ruined it for me. All the pissants who never gamed online before suddenly flooded (pun) Halo 2 and that was it for me and Xbox Live.

Thinking back to all of the great singleplayer Xbox and PS2 games last generation......and all the ones from the PS1 days (my personal fav).......

I weep for my hobby.

[LX-General-Kaos]

Gaming is doing just fine right now. Single player games and multiplayer games alike.

[A LIVING LEGEND]

remove the man from the cave.
Often finding the cave is not so easily removed from the man...
I point shoot think....in that order.
intuitive,social online with an emphasis on co-op not op-dep is the future.
Online is not ruining gaming,the people online often can.