I agree obviously. It's an absolutely terrible and petty idea.
However, if EA and Blizzard were in any way on the ball, they would have understood the risks of implementing always-online DRM, and made absolutely 100% sure that it would work right off the bat. In that case, though we would still believe always-online DRM to be a terrible thing, we wouldn't have so much ammunition against them.
...But, they royally f***ed up their launches beyond belief. And i'm glad for this, personally, because I hope this kills the shit out of always-online DRM.
@kevnb actually diablo 3 took about three weeks to get fully up and running. I think it took even longer to get the auction house setup. And then even longer for PVP. All of which were implied as being in the game near launch.
Not in the least, since people were against it before either game released. Screwing it up only showed that companies not only ignore what we have to say (or just don't care) and are perfectly fine with allowing their products to fail due to lazyness.
Comparing Diablo 3 and SimCity is like comparing Apples and Oranges.
Where Diablo 3 could use Always online DRM is the control Botting and Duping, but Blizz shows that can't control that anyways. Maybe one day they'll let us make a offline only character that can't do anything over Battle.net
On the other hand, Simcity has no need for Always Online DRM. If I want to make a city not next to another city, I should be able to. To force me to be online all the time spits in the face of older Simcity games. Maybe they would do better marketing this as a new twist for the series, and nothing like the older ones.
Digital rights management. Trash that publishers jam into games to punish paying customers for the potential of piracy. Usually it's used for activation limits (SecuROM, TAGES, etc.). Always-on DRM is uncommon. Ubisoft used to do it for their PC games, until a big enough backlash made them remove it.
DRM is just Digital Rights Management and it's basically a F U to the end user.
Typically DRM is used to prevent piracy (though in some cases they get work arounds), but ultimately just punishes the end user. Most DRM comes in the form of a single check, where as "always on" is continuous. In the case of Simcity, you're not only unable to play it offline, if you lose your connection / can't connect / lack internet, then your game is useless.
EA is the poster child of how bad DRM is. With what happened to Sim City; no other content creators would dare put DRM on their games. It is practically career suicide.
You'd think so, but they're not the first to do this. Every time someone does, the same exact thing happens. People can't access the product they just paid for, and the internet goes into attack mode. Knowing this, EA still decided to push it into SimCity. I'm sure they won't be the last.
Hopefully this will open publishers eyes, so they will drop this always online crap. You'd think with all the negative media and boycoting gamers they will. But then again, its EA...
Luckily this always online DRM is still pretty new and is already being bashed on by many.
Then again, call of duty is also being bashed on in the gaming community, but it's still the most played game on both consoles..
Why? Because of casual gamers,that just play a game now and then, and don't follow the industry like many on this site, they don't know about companies like EA or activision being assholes. Recycling their game every year, leaving out content for dlc, online passes etc.
They still keep buying their games every year. I dont blame em, if you like a game, you shouldnt care who the publisher is.
Even though the publisher does have input on the game, its still the developer that makes most decisions. look at when crysis 2 came out, EA wanted it to have an online pass, but crytek said no.
Though, it's a different story when they the publisher completely owns the studio.
Unlikely, since people still show they don't care.
Simcity still got a bunch of sales and this problem only exists before it was somewhat successful. You can post 100 articles against it, but I STILL saw some people get interested in the title after it became a fiasco.
I fear for the future generations that won't get to play these great games unless they release an offline patch once the servers go offline , they won't get to enjoy them how we enjoy diablo 1-2 and sim city /2000/3000/4. 10+ years after they release
They didn't ruin it, they just made PERFECT EXAMPLES of why always on DRM is one of the most stupid ideas ever.
Imagine if next generation is like that. EVERY single game will be unplayable for the first week because "more people than expected are playing the game....."
There is a long list of issues with it, this is just the first hurdle.
Between games requiring always online to psn being down, for a full month, i won't be supporting anything that locks me out of single player with no internet connection.
Offline play should always be a option by default.
40°
30°
60°
100°
Ad 
40°
30°
30°
30°
30°
30°
However, if EA and Blizzard were in any way on the ball, they would have understood the risks of implementing always-online DRM, and made absolutely 100% sure that it would work right off the bat. In that case, though we would still believe always-online DRM to be a terrible thing, we wouldn't have so much ammunition against them.
...But, they royally f***ed up their launches beyond belief. And i'm glad for this, personally, because I hope this kills the shit out of always-online DRM.
'Has Always-Online DRM Ruined SimCity and Diablo III?'
Where Diablo 3 could use Always online DRM is the control Botting and Duping, but Blizz shows that can't control that anyways. Maybe one day they'll let us make a offline only character that can't do anything over Battle.net
On the other hand, Simcity has no need for Always Online DRM. If I want to make a city not next to another city, I should be able to. To force me to be online all the time spits in the face of older Simcity games. Maybe they would do better marketing this as a new twist for the series, and nothing like the older ones.
Typically DRM is used to prevent piracy (though in some cases they get work arounds), but ultimately just punishes the end user. Most DRM comes in the form of a single check, where as "always on" is continuous. In the case of Simcity, you're not only unable to play it offline, if you lose your connection / can't connect / lack internet, then your game is useless.
Seems other publishers still can't resist dipping their toes into it.
You'd think with all the negative media and boycoting gamers they will. But then again, its EA...
Luckily this always online DRM is still pretty new and is already being bashed on by many.
Then again, call of duty is also being bashed on in the gaming community, but it's still the most played game on both consoles..
Why? Because of casual gamers,that just play a game now and then, and don't follow the industry like many on this site, they don't know about companies like EA or activision being assholes.
Recycling their game every year, leaving out content for dlc, online passes etc.
They still keep buying their games every year. I dont blame em, if you like a game, you shouldnt care who the publisher is.
Even though the publisher does have input on the game, its still the developer that makes most decisions.
look at when crysis 2 came out, EA wanted it to have an online pass, but crytek said no.
Though, it's a different story when they the publisher completely owns the studio.
Simcity still got a bunch of sales and this problem only exists before it was somewhat successful. You can post 100 articles against it, but I STILL saw some people get interested in the title after it became a fiasco.
Diablo 3 launch day was time wasted...time i will never get back!
Imagine if next generation is like that. EVERY single game will be unplayable for the first week because "more people than expected are playing the game....."
There is a long list of issues with it, this is just the first hurdle.
Offline play should always be a option by default.