Top
60°

DRM City: The Future of Always-Online Games Looks Grim

GP writer Marcus Estrada explains how the future of always online games is looking grim in light of the DRM hindering Sim City's launch.

Read Full Story >>
gamepodunk.com
The story is too old to be commented.
setaimx1233d ago

It's unfortunate that EA had to go and make the single player online-always. They really should have an option to log in online (just to authenticate if they're really worried about it) and then play offline so you don't have to worry about servers going down. That's essentially what they did with StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty, and while it isn't as good as being able to play totally offline, it's better than always-online DRM.

clearelite1233d ago (Edited 1233d ago )

I'm glad they did it, because some people needed to know how awful it can be.

Paying for a (single player) game, then needing an internet connection to play is absurd imo.

There may be a few exceptions though.

2pacalypsenow1233d ago (Edited 1233d ago )

Starcraft 2 is playable without internet , you just dont get achievements for it

KaptainJ1233d ago

The concept of having all cities connected with one another in an online world is cool and all, but it's a shame it had to go so terribly wrong once the game was released. According to Will Wright, he's had more fun with this installment than he's had in a very long time, so it's not a bad game in itself. Hopefully things work out soon, because I really would like to try it out for myself.

CaulkSlap1233d ago

It sounded good theory. As an extension to the classic single player epic management game.

But even if they sort out all the bugs and the servers work perfectly, the basic game is still completely broken imo. Basing everything around the multiplayer mode with small cities is just a joke.

TheLiztress1233d ago

While I love the general idea they were going for, I just don't think it should mean that you have to always be online to play. Offline play for this game seems to be a must. Though EA doesn't think so.

Reborn1233d ago

Should have been an optional thing. For example, if you were online, you could get certain benefits, or do as they originally intended.

If they were going to do such a thing, they needed an open beta, or something to stress test. But figures. As usual, game publishers fail to comprehend the basics.

masteroftheclaw1232d ago

Funnily enough, they had at least two betas but they were by invitation and capped at a certain amount. Why oh why have a beta if you're not even going to give it a shot with everyone to see if your game servers can withstand it?

spartanlemur1233d ago

If we refuse to buy these games then the market will be small and publishers will not produce for them. Unless governments act to regulate the industry sales models, the onus is on us to make wiser spending decisions. Supporting DRM-free games like The Witcher 2, which also had free dlc will teach publishers to return to the traditional games-as-art model of development. If governments continue to sleep, we'll have to take responsibility ourselves, unfortunately.

Show all comments (13)