DragonKnight (User)

  • Contributor
  • 6 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 151240
"I don't care about bubbles. Seriously, I don't."

Ubisoft May Expose The Hypocrisy Among Core Gamers

DragonKnight | 524d ago
User blog

Do any of you remember this little problem of always on DRM that the Xbox One had? No? Well, basically the Xbox One required an internet connection that would check up on you every 24 hours. This pissed people off for a month straight and Microsoft changed it a few days ago. Yeah, I know you all know what I'm talking about, but I wrote that whole thing out on purpose. Why? Well because Ubisoft has revealed the complete hypocrisy present in the core gaming community. Allow me to explain.

The core gaming community rallied against Microsoft's DRM, as well they should have. Now, Ubisoft have confirmed that The Division and The Crew, two of their upcoming titles, will be always online. You can play in single player, but you have to remain online for the game to function. Do you know what I saw when I read up on this? People liking this move from Ubisoft. Things like "I'm fine with always online DRM as long as it's not just a DRM that they throw at you and it serves some actual purpose" or "MMO's do this all the time."

HYPOCRITES!

What was the point in tearing into Microsoft about a once every 24 hour check if you're going to sit there and agree with an always on requirement. Not once every 24 hours, ALWAYS! That means if your connection goes out at any time during the day, you can't play the game. At all. And you're applauding Ubisoft for this? This is the same company that introduced always online DRM to PC gaming and were met with fierce opposition and cracking until they finally had to get rid of it. Why would you support this for games but pitch a hissy fit over Microsoft doing it?

Either support both, or support neither. If you support one and not the other, you're a flip flopping hypocrite and unworthy of gaming period because you're the reason companies get away with trying to screw us ALL over. If any percentage of people support these terrible practices, we ALL suffer for it.

Does no one remember SimCity or Diablo 3? Oh but it's ok if Ubisoft does it? Why? Because you like the game? Bullsh*t. Microsoft will look at what Ubisoft is doing and quite rightly feel like metaphorically pulling their hair out. And once Ubisoft gets away with it, expect more always online games.

It's one thing to require an internet connection to play while you're playing it if it's strictly online, it's quite another to force online for the single player aspects of the game. Why would anyone support this? Why would anyone who was against what Microsoft were doing turn around and support Ubisoft?

This next generation of gaming hasn't even fully began and it's already a clusterf*ck of lies, anti-consumerism, delusion, and hypocrisy. Quite frankly, any of the flip flopping hypocrites around deserve to have all of their rights taken away because clearly they only care about them selectively instead of completely.

Thank goodness for me that I'm tired of shooters trying to masquerade as RPGs of any kind, and don't care for driving games so this doesn't have any impact on me in the short term. But if Ubisoft gets away with this because of the flip flopping hypocrites and it DOES have an impact on me in the long term, I'm going off on all of you regardless of it having any actual impact in the end.

Get your priorities straight people. We're either all in this together, or we shouldn't bother being in it at all.

dedicatedtogamers  +   524d ago | Well said
TBH, I was puzzled why people were going ga-ga over The Crew and The Division. Neither game looked remotely interesting to me, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I agree. After seeing all the flip-flopping and declarations of "Xbox gonna win now that DRM is gone!", it is yet another confirmation that a lot of gamers lack self-control and integrity.

These gaming companies need to realize that if they make it OPTIONAL yet ENTICING, people will go along with it. Online was not required for Demon's/Dark Souls, but most people played it online for the various benefits. Give us the option and WE will decide if the game needs to be online or not.
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
Exactly. Options are always the best way to go. But people going nuts over these 2 games and applauding the always online are what's wrong with the core community. I mean, if it's ok for Ubisoft, why was it wrong for Microsoft. I would love for someone to explain that.
#1.1 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Fez  +   524d ago
I agree with you about the hypocrisy. If you're talking about people's reaction on this site then it's pretty obvious why it was so wrong for MS but not for Ubisoft :P

But I think there is a difference between online requirements for a console and online requirements for a game. You might be willing to take the hit for a single game if it looks really good, but for every game throughout the entire console life takes a bigger jump.

The main issue with the One's DRM was Microsofts inability to explain it clearly and provide obvious benefits. Ubisoft will probably do that because it's a lot easier for a single game where you can show people what always online provides in gameplay.
#1.1.1 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
darthv72  +   524d ago
honest question
The big topic is "DRM" but does everything have to be related to DRM from this point forward?

Meaning if this game is an online connected game then why cant we just look at it as an online connected game?

DRM is a term for Digital Rights Management which =/= to online connectivity to play. Maybe i just dont understand but ever since the first words of what one company was doing it became "THE" word to use now for EVERYTHING.

Ever since this whole thing happened, DRM is becoming the scapegoat for anything and everything. That can't possibly be true and quite honestly, its ruining the buzz about next gen games because people are paranoid.

Lets give it a rest and get back to gaming news not DRM news. This is N4G not DRM4G
#1.1.2 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(2) | Report
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
@Darth: The point where an online connected game becomes DRM is when online is a requirement for a single player experience. There is no justification for requiring online for single player aspects, and no explanation beyond DRM. I don't buy cloud computing because it has obvious barriers it has yet to overcome and SimCity had no advantages from it, so I don't buy into the idea that Ubisoft's games will magically benefit from cloud computing.
Ducky  +   524d ago
^ From what I'm aware, both The Division and Crew were built around an online world.

Considering that most of the footage shown for both games has emphasized the online aspect, its understandable why people interested in either game are not too worried about the online requirement.

Also, as far as I know, Ubisoft's other games like WatchDogs and AssassinsCreed are not always-online, so I think it's a bit unfair to say they're only doing it for DRM. They would've done it on all their games then.
... and they're still allowing you to resell your games, so I'm not sure why DRM would be a motivation to force always-online.
Bimkoblerutso  +   524d ago
I'm totally with you on the DRM stuff, DragonKnight, but like Ducky mentioned, these games are (as far as we can tell) being developed as MMO's. I have no more a problem with their existence than I do with, say, Guild Wars or PlanetSide.

Surely you can understand the difference between a console-wide policy restricting any offline singleplayer gaming, and a single game created around multiplayer mechanics that require you to be online.
loulou  +   524d ago
you had no need to write a blog about this, the answer is simple...

it is ok for anyone to do anything on n4g as long as it aint m$ doing it. donc voila !!
HammadTheBeast  +   524d ago
I agree, the Crew is a racing game, absolutely no need for always online in a racing game.

The Division I understand, it seems like an MMO, I doubt there's even single player in it. But still, hypocrisy level achieved.
RavageX  +   524d ago
I personally don't give a proper damn about either game or any online-only game these days. I did that with MAG and while I enjoyed it, it's a struggle to get a decent match going now.

While these games seem fun, unless they are cheap I am not bothered to have them. Give a choice and the games get a better chance.

I can understand MMOs(obviously) being online only, but a racing game...no. Test Drive Unlimited 2 is a sorta MMO racer, but you can still play it offline.

The original post...the simple problem was choice. You didn't have that if you bought the Xbox One before they changed it. Someone else already mentioned this though. Simply...one game that you can't play offline....not so bad. an entire system that won't let you play ANY game offline...no way.
rainslacker  +   524d ago
The crew could easily work in a traditional single player way. I could imagine some crazy taxi type stuff, taking down baddies through challenges and the like. Even having a focused story line if they wished. Ubisoft just isn't going that route though, so it's just challenges thought up by the online servers...which isn't really a bad thing, but makes me know that one day the game will be useless when the servers shut down.

The division I always thought was an MMO. Single player is just the online version in single player mode though I guess. If I had to guess there would be no campaign, so again, the story won't be centric to the player. The player will just be a participant in that world.
dedicatedtogamers  +   524d ago
*you are now reading my post with the Crazy Taxi announcer's voice

"Hey hey hey! It's time to make some cuh-raaazy money. Are ya ready? Heeere weee GOOO!!!"

*yaaa yaaa yaa yaaa yaaa from The Offspring kicks in

Man. It'll never be the year 2000 again, will it?
HammadTheBeast  +   523d ago
^

You have won the internetz.

I never got around to finding out what song that was despite sinking dozens of hours into Crazy Taxi on my Dreamcast.
admiralvic  +   523d ago
To be fair, I think hypocrisy is being thrown around, much like people throw around misogynist in a feminist topic.

For someone to be a hypocrite, you have to first do something hypocritical. This is just common sense. Now the important thing here is that only the people attacking the Xbox and praise these games are in fact hypocrites. Like don't forget that there WERE people that were okay with the "always on" because it "didn't affect them" and there will always be people that don't care about anything if it doesn't affect them.

Really seems silly to call any group or really anyone a hypocrite without proper proof of it. Not like the "core" community has universally agreed about anything ever.
coolbeans  +   524d ago
I log on today and you have to be the one who imparts this sad news to me. :'(

@Hammad

One of Alain Corre's (one of Ubisoft's directors) quotes mentions both titles having a single-player component:

Edit: "Not MMOs. You can have an experience on your own or with friends. It’s a non-stopping world, which is like life. You’re getting closer to life."
#3 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
"I log on today and you have to be the one who imparts this sad news to me. :'("

Would it have been easier to handle had it been from someone else?

"Not MMOs. You can have an experience on your own or with friends. It’s a non-stopping world, which is like life. You’re getting closer to life."

That, to me, screams of PR spin. It also isn't much of an explanation as to why online is required for single player.
coolbeans  +   524d ago
"Would it have been easier to handle had it been from someone else?"

http://media.tumblr.com/tum...

Not sure where you're going with that. :/

Yeah...the explanation does reek of that. I wouldn't be convinced to see them say they are MMO's (at least with The Division) for damage control like EA did with SimCity.
#3.1.1 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
Septic  +   524d ago
Sorry, but I actually burst out laughing at that gif coolbeans.....in fact I'm still laughing.....just spat on my phone hahaha.

Ah man ...your comment plus that gif ......aaaaah

http://www.imgur.com/YTiGth...
#3.1.2 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
Goldenarmz  +   524d ago
It really isnt the same thing, if my connection goes out. Then i know that i cant play that game. The difference lies in not being able to play the CONSOLE. Regardless of what game is being played. If my internet is down, then common sense tells me that i cant play an Online MMO. But i should be able to play Fable 4 or Mass Effect 4 or even Forza if i am playing the single player mode. So its just a slightly different scenario. They are saying you cant play this Single Game, MS was telling us we cant play our 500 dollar console. Which to me, is vastly different.
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
It's different yes, but it's also the same.

Consider: The Xbox One would "brick" if you missed the check in, but the check in was once every 24 hours. That means for 23 hours you could play anything offline without worry about your connection until the time came to check in. Connect to check in, disconnect and continue playing. That was the workaround.

With Ubisoft's games you have to worry about your connection ALL THE TIME. Even if you're playing single player, if your connection goes out then your game goes out. Imagine playing The Division and you reach a crucial point in the game, be it a climactic boss fight or the best part of the story, then you connection goes out. On the Xbox One if that happened you could still play so long as it didn't happen around the check in time. But with Ubisoft's system you're screwed and that part of the game is blocked from you until your connection is restored.

You also had better hope that losing the connection doesn't boot you to the title screen and that auto-save features don't have a glitch.

Sure, you can pop in another game and play it, but are you saying you wouldn't be "controller thrown at the screen" angry that your internet connection ruined your single player gaming experience?
Goldenarmz  +   524d ago
All of your comments are "what if scenarios" We dont exactly know how the Single Player aspect of Division will actually work, and who would go in to a game like Division and only want to play Single Player mode? That is an Online heavy game and people going in to that game probably know that. Its completely different from having your Console Bricking because you didnt pay your internet bill. I can deal with not being able to play a game for a certain period of time because my internet is out. Not my console that again, i paid 500 bucks for.
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
"and who would go in to a game like Division and only want to play Single Player mode?"

You'd be surprised. And given that Ubisoft included a single player mode, they obviously don't agree with your implication that few or none would want to play single player.
WeMilk   524d ago | Spam
MysticStrummer  +   524d ago
I agree with Goldenarmz.

Not wanting a console that requires an online connection while still being interested in a game like Destiny isn't hypocrisy at all.
edonus  +   524d ago
First blog you ever wrote that i can agree with.

I always say before you start fighting you need to know who your is. I think MS just got caught out there. They saw what devs were doing and decided to try and position themselves in a way that would align their interests. I was shocked when i found Destiny was an always Online game and no one was talking about it.

Every week I see more game that are that way but I dont see any outrage. If i'm not mistaken Assassins Creed 4 requires an online connection to play.... that game is a single player adventure to its core, now it requires online. This doesnt really affect me the same way a 24 check in never affected me.

But we all know the truth DRM wasnt why MS received so much backlash, MS received backlash because they are launching a new console against Sony and in the spirit of competition the sony supporters looked for anything they could or can use to paint MS in a negative light.

Not to say some people arent generally concerned about DRM, but the mass of them didnt really look at the landscape of the battle field. Its wasnt MS that was invading they were just trying to capitalize off of the impending dev and publisher onslaught.

What we (meaning you or anyone that actually cares about this, because doesnt really affect me) should be paying attention to is if in the new games you have to register them thus locking them to you or your console. That will be the real DRM. Remember devs can still decide whether or not they want to let there games be traded and resold.
rainslacker  +   524d ago
AC4 always on was a rumor. It hasn't been confirmed, or even mentioned by Ubisoft. It may have a similar feature though, which I find unnecessary, but that's on Ubisoft to decide. I wouldn't buy it if that's the case.

As to these two games, the worlds are a persistent world, and the single player resides within that persistent world. It's a design choice, possibly a underhanded way at DRM, or possibly to provide a different kind of experience to a single player game. It also serves to function as the multi-player part of the game. The two co-exist in the same world. It can also exist to extend the single player, or just be used as a way for people to play an MMO game when they don't have anyone to play with, or decide to be alone.

That isn't the same as what MS did. That's why Ubisoft isn't the enemy here.

And you were shocked Destiny was an always online game? What did you think an MMO shooter would be? MMO by it's very definition is online...ie multi-player only.

Still good job trying to validate all your previous posts because one blogger got the issues mixed up

sorry dragon...think you didn't see what Ubisoft was trying to do with this one...if the worlds weren't persistent I would be right there with you. If some company does decide to lock the single player behind an online connection, then I will voice my displeasure with you happily.:)
#5.1 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
edonus  +   524d ago
What about Watch Dogs that is rumored to need an online as well. The Crew is a racing game... come on! A racing game that must always be connected. You are going to defend this and sweep it under the rug.

See its already working, the messaging is different and a lot slicker. You arent keeping you eyes on the prize. So you will be fine with all of your games requiring always online connections as long as there are online elements to it. You feel the division couldnt have been made with always online as an option? HA what about the Crew and if AC4 turns out to require online?

I need to validate nothing I look at trends real data real things. I stand by every post I have ever made because I dont pull BS out of my @$$.

I am watching the industry with much interest now. I cant wait to see what EA and all the others are going to do.
rainslacker  +   524d ago
Yes, Watch Dogs requiring internet is also a rumor. Actually I believe they said you can play offline, but it has enhanced features with online play. Can't find a link and may be thinking of a different game. If AC4 and Watch Dogs are confirmed to require an online connection to play the SP component of the game, we can hate it and discuss them. Until then, using them as examples isn't really pertinent. However, to answer your question, I won't buy them, and will rail against it on the forums, just like with the X1.

Edit: Watch Dogs can be played completely offline. Response to the rumor.

http://mynintendonews.com/2...

Edit 2: I question AC4 required online. It's also coming for the PS3 and 360 and Wii U. Can't find a comment from Ubi though.

I agree with the Crew. I don't see any reason why the SP components have to be online. With the exception that it is a persistent world. Same with The Division. It's a different method of delivering content, which given other persistent worlds out there will probably be changing over time.

In order to understand the difference lets look at two games currently available.

Tomb Raider. This game has a single player campaign. It can be played completely offline, and the content is on the disc. It is forever static, and one play through will be much the same as the 2nd play through.

World of Warcraft. Consistent world. Totally online. Can't play offline. However, when you're online, content can be changed by the developer, or the other users who are playing on the same server. For instance, I go with a raid and kill Thrall. Next user, doing SP quests, goes to see Thrall for a quest, but he's dead, so he can't complete the quest. Hence, persistent world.

What The Crew and The Division seem to be offering is a game where the content changes based on what is going to be happening in the world. Like the solo quester's experience while playing WOW.

It's as simple as that.

Now, since we haven't seen any reports on the SP aspects of the game, it's hard to say right now if there is a Tomb Raider type SP campaign that you have to be connected to play. If so, Dragon's blog would ring true. Based on the quotes though, this doesn't really seem to be the case. You are simply a participant in a much bigger world, but in some way your actions will affect that world, and possibly the experience for other users.

I have a feeling this method of content delivery will be used for quite a few games next gen. Ubisoft even said as much. It doesn't mean that the true single player campaign will disappear though. What Ubisoft is offering is just another way to experience a SP game.

So again, I see no hypocrisy...except maybe on those that don't really understand what Ubisoft is presenting.
#5.1.2 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
MacDonagh  +   524d ago
Hmph. I'm not surprised in the slightest. While Sony got a lot of praise for not doing what Microsoft was doing and now Microsoft have completely changed their stance on the check-in every 24 hour DRM issue; one cannot help but point out that these companies made the infrastructures possible to allow for publishers to have these types of DRM in their games in the first place.

A lot of people are going to be a bunch of butthurt Barrys when the microtransactions really kick in and they can't experience the full game unless they pay a certain amount.

The publishers are going to have to do it because the business model that most publishers have is currently unsustainable and they need to do DRM just to stay afloat. Expect a couple of publishers to not make it in the next gen.

The crash already happened and y'all should grab some popcorn and enjoy.

Related video
wishingW3L  +   524d ago
DRM for a few games > DRM for every single game no matter what
SmokeyMcBear  +   524d ago
what is the blog rant for?!? my two cents: A game being online at all times (DRM) is completely different than a console where every single game has DRM. See the difference there. Also also, the uproar of the DRM was that a console was rendered entirely useless if it did not have access to the internet, in addition to used games not being supported as part of the DRM policy. This blog is misguided.
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
How is it misguided when both are the same form of DRM implemented differently? And for the record, the Xbox One did not become useless if you missed the check. MS stated that you could still watch movies, use their stupid tv service, and basically anything you wanted except game. That's not a useless device unless all you do is game on it.

And obviously you missed the point of the blog. DRM of all kinds isn't right. Forcing online in a single player game isn't right. Being supportive, agreeing with that DRM in a smaller form is hypocritical. It's essentially saying "I'm ok with you telling me how I can play my game so long as it's only a small amount of games."
SmokeyMcBear  +   524d ago
Its misguided because you can't compare the two. Accepting a single game DRM is not the same as accepting and entire console and the consoles Library DRM. You can choose not to purchase a single game if you don't like the policies, and all you lose out on is that game experience. Choosing not to purchase an entire console makes you lose out on every single game available on that platform, exclusive, multip, indie, whatever, every single game. The two DRMs are not comparable.
OmniSlashPT  +   524d ago
I dont think he understands The Crew and The Division are MMOs with free roam and are supposed to be played online thus the DRM policies make sense (eventhough there should be an option, its not that bad).

Thats completely different from like playing Rayman and having DRM, that would make absolutely no sense at all.

A lot of games next gen will be about connecting and free roam worlds with multiplayer options, but that doesnt mean single player games will die. We have to accept both. But a consola that completely stricts SP gamers? even MS thinks that's ridiculous.
DragonKnight  +   524d ago
Look them up again and you'll see single player modes. Explain how online requirement is necessary for single player modes.

Geez, I didn't think things got this bad. That people accept smaller forms of the same problem.
SmokeyMcBear  +   524d ago
It's not single player, its a group of players in a squad connected via the intenet against computer NPCs, ala WOW and the like.
WeMilk   524d ago | Spam
rainslacker  +   524d ago
I had to go back and read the original story for this, and the quotes along with it.

It would appear to me that both these games do have the ability to have single player, however the game design is based off a persistent world, not unlike WOW.

While the games themselves may not be MMO in the traditional sense, it would seem that the worlds change based on what the developer's, or possibly other players, are doing to change it in a simulation of "real-time".

This doesn't mean the game has a DRM check to play single player games. Just means that's how the game is designed to function.

It can be argued it's being done as a form of DRM, but that is just a draw back to the concept of an online persistent world. In the case of these games, the developer decided not to put in a self-contained single player campaign.

If someone has a problem with that, they don't have to buy it, but it is a wholly different scenario than what MS was proposing. With MS, the idea was to lock up the entire console, so you couldn't play any aspect of your games if you didn't connect.

In these scenarios, the game is required to connect in order to provide the content to the end user.

If someone doesn't agree with that design choice, they don't have to buy the game, and can instead spend money on a different game that provides the experience they want.

So basically, no hypocrisy here.

Edit:

On a side note, the fact that there is a persistent world means that there probably won't be a single player story campaign like most games have. The story will just likely be the player doing random stuff, while the world reacts around it. It's not traditional single player, which is unfortunate. I thought the division could have a great single player story, considering the themes.
#10 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
skyblue14213  +   524d ago
They could program the game with all possible variables that could be pursued by gamers(HINT: all companies have been doing this practice since practically the beginning of the gaming industry) within the limits that the game would allow without having to include an always online connection.

These games have stealth drm written all over them. Don't believe the corporate "it's the future of gaming" story of pr bs jargen they are feeding you that you are clearly displaying in your original post. They are greedy so don't feed their greed by voting with your wallet.
rainslacker  +   524d ago
It's a method of content delivery. At this point in time, given the quotes, that's the conclusion I came to. Everyone else is assuming the worst.

I have a post above replying to Edonus where I explain the differences in content delivery, but I'll expand on that here.

With a persistent world, the fact is, that the "variables" that you are talking about change based on factors outside the users control. Whether that's developer changes to the world, or other players who change the world through their actions. As such, you are a participant in the over all story, but not the main focus of the world like with most SP campaigns.

Basically, it's just a different form of single player. Either that, or the game was intended to be only MP, and they put this in to get more sales for those that don't care to play with others. They basically didn't have to write a dedicated SP campaign.

Now, with all this I'm only speculating. I haven't seen the SP of these games, so they may be entirely independent story campaigns tied behind a DRM connection. Given the quotes though, that doesn't seem to be the case.

It's not really my thing game wise, as I prefer a nice cohesive story where my avatar is the main focus, but it is what it is. It's just a different experience. Some people will like it, others won't.

It may be an underhanded form of DRM, but I see it as just the way the game was designed to provide game play to the player.

If it's proven otherwise when more details are released, or the game is released, then I will agree with you. Until then, I don't see it as hypocrisy. I think the people that see it as hypocrisy are the ones that assume the single player is a more traditional SP experience that we're accustomed to.
skyblue14213  +   524d ago
Thanks for the info.

I have a good dsl internet connection at 7 mb/s(it is a dedicated line which means no sharing with any other dsl subscribers in my neighborhood) & have hundreds of console games alone in which I spend quite a bit of money on one of my favorite hobbies. But I will not be buying these games based on the fact that ubisoft truly does not care for anyone or anything but the bottom line.

I suggest to hit them in the only place that ubisoft knows which is THE POCKET BOOK. Be a real gamer like me and tell them with your wallet/purse that you mean business & are not going to tolerate any anti-consumer practices. Besides limiting your audience ubisoft in which you have this fantasy land constant internet connection that you dream/imagine everyone has, but I am digressing.

What is the point of having drm when history has proven 99% of consumers across the board hate drm. I mean what sense does it make to put drm in console games when 99% of the console gaming populace plays legal/official/commercial copies of games on consoles that are still commercially available. I mean ubisoft really, are you serious! Are you purposely trying to bankrupt your company to the ground by implementing drm that benefits neither your company, shareholders, or potential consumers.

Ubisoft I hope you enjoy going into the red the year these games release, also good luck explaining your arrogant attitude when your shareholders take a hit when almost no real & educated consumer that has principles does not buy your games that have drm. Ubisoft you think you would have learned by now with the assassins creed(ubisoft), diablo 3(blizzard), & simcity(ea) disasters that was made an example of. But I guess you need to be in the loin's den a little while longer to realize drm is no good either way. I hope that you don't drown in your own red ink before you realize that you made a big mistake. But to each their own I guess, it's your financial funeral ubisoft.

There are plenty of other games out there to play when these games release. To the real gamers with morals & principles(like me): don't support this drm in any way, shape, or form by not buying games that have any drm in them. let ubisoft eat their words & choke on their arrogance.
#11 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
chamber  +   524d ago
A game is a whole lot different from a console. I can always avoid a game if i know that it needed internet connection. I cannot however avoid my system being shut off if i don't check in every 24 hours even if i don't use any online functionality.
#12 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
ICANPLAYGAMES2  +   524d ago
That's a shame, both titles were looking interesting, but as I am hearing about this just now, both games have significantly fallen off my radar, oh well guess I'll have to see what else is worth the additional look.
EffectO  +   524d ago
Expect to see lots and lots of titles doing this.$60 games + mandatory online subscription = console future

"This next generation of gaming hasn't even fully began and it's already a clusterf*ck of lies, anti-consumerism, delusion, and hypocrisy. Quite frankly, any of the flip flopping hypocrites around deserve to have all of their rights taken away because clearly they only care about them selectively instead of completely."

Fully agree.
#14 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
MrBeatdown  +   524d ago
I think you're really oversimplifying things here.

It's not as simple as "always online = bad". People's reasoning isn't that simplistic. It has as much to do with value and purpose as anything.

Xbox One's DRM didn't offer value to most people, or have much of a reason to exist in the first place. Sure, it had that vaguely defined sharing feature, but that was about it.

We had to prove we owned all of our games every single day if we wanted to play anything at all. A day with no internet meant a day with no gaming. A game could only be given to a friend once. We could only sell our games at pre-approved stores for whatever stores felt like paying us. It was a MASSIVE pile of inconvenience, restrictions, and diminished game value, with no real benefit or purpose other than to give Microsoft more control.

To me, DRM isn't bad. It's entirely about what I get for what I'm giving up, how it's implemented, and WHY it's implemented, and I'd imagine it's the same for most people.

Games like The Crew and The Division... we barely know what these games will offer, or why they will have online requirements, so it's way too early to judge the value of the trade-off.

Sure, there is undoubtedly some element of them that doesn't require a connection on a technical level, but I'm sure you could just as easily wander around the world in World of Warcraft in offline mode if Blizzard wanted to be bothered. But is it a worthwhile experience? Is it worth the developers' time to cater to those who think so, building up an inferior offline single player experience that meets people's expectations, just to say "we have offline single player" for those who need to have every game they own available offline?

And why is it that developers aren't allowed to bring their multiplayer games closer to single player without offering a full blown offline single player? These games are clearly online-focused. Isn't it just as hypocritical to give full blown multiplayer games a pass for not even bothering with single player, yet demand that developers who want to blur the lines between the single and multiplayer go and actually do the opposite and clearly define that line?

To me, it's one thing to demand that a game like Fallout (in it's current form) which has absolutely no need for an online connection, along with every other game I own, not be left completely unplayable for no reason other than Microsoft wanting everything to be digital. But to start demanding and expecting that games be designed a certain way, without even fully understanding reasoning behind their design, treating the two scenarios as if it's the same exact situation, and acting like no person should ever have differing opinions on the two is more than a little ridiculous.

I really hate it how people throw around the hypocrisy card so broadly. Those trolls who piled into the PS+ comments to call anyone and everyone hypocrites for not raging at the idea of PS+ including multiplayer, just because people don't like Live, is a great example. Those people act as if the fact that it was a subscription that included multiplayer was the only problem anyone could have had with the service. It completely ignored any more nuanced reasoning as to why many people didn't like Live, like charging for the use of free apps, or things like cross-game chat being the only real value Live had to offer over free multiplayer alternatives.

The two online requirements simply aren't the same. They have different purposes and benefits, and you shouldn't label everyone hypocrites and ignore the underlying reasons just because they don't come to the same conclusion for each situation.
#15 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
s45gr32  +   524d ago
I disagree so in what way has free online gaming along with chat/text and game invites has been detrimental to PS Plus success and improvement. The answer is it hasn't, I still have high hopes for Sony to keep online gaming free. For I know that despite free online gaming gamers are willing to pay for PS Plus. Now for the division and the crew I agree to a certain extent. Especially the division which is a mmo shooter like planetside franchise. So if is a mmo then I don't expect to have offline single player mode. The crew could end up either as your typical racer for if it does there is no reason not to have offline single player; however, it could also end up as the first mmo racer which by all means no offline single player mode needed. I guess people are okay with it due to these games are best played online, I don't see how the crew or the division can work as offline games.
MrBeatdown  +   523d ago
"I disagree so in what way has free online gaming along with chat/text and game invites has been detrimental to PS Plus success and improvement. The answer is it hasn't, I still have high hopes for Sony to keep online gaming free. For I know that despite free online gaming gamers are willing to pay for PS Plus."

I think you're misunderstanding what I said. I was actually defending those who think Plus being tied to multiplayer on PS4 is acceptable. My point is that some people throw around accusations of hypocrisy, regardless of the underlying reasons why someone might be okay with PS+ on PS4, but not Live. It's foolish to ignore those reasons, and assume all opinion can be boiled down to something as simplistic as "paid online play = bad" or "always online = bad".
mydyingparadiselost  +   524d ago
This next generation is going to push the blending of single player and multiplayer into one singular game that will need a connection to play and with that will come DRM not through crazy restrictions from consoles but the necessity to be online in the first place to play. Watchdogs for instance will put other players in your single player game if you want and wil offer missions based around or including those elements. Eventually, and probably during the course of this upcoming generation, that choice will turn into a requirement for many games and viola! DRM will be achieved through the games design itself. Games like Titanfall and Destiny are going to be the first real push for this always connected, constantly changing game universe that can be monitored for hacking or pirating players while pushing an online agenda for all games by giving these games worlds that can continually offer something new even if you've played for 200 hours. I'm sure this will also mean alot more ways to charge people for content but that's a story for another day. The offline single player experience will wind up being pushed more by indie devs than AAA developers but to get those indie games you'll still need that internet connection for downloading these titles in the first place, so your still going to be tied to the internet for your gaming experience.
If any of this is worth it remains to be seen but where MS was at least upfront about its intentions the rest of the industry is pulling off a stealth kill on the non connected console by developing their games with the requirements built in. I'm not looking forward to this future, I prefer playing games as a way of getting away from all the Aholes in life, but it is the future nonetheless. The real question here is if this is really what customers want in the first place and how much is going to cost over time? The first question is a personal one, it's going to be different depending on your situation and what you want out of gaming in the first place. The second is definately up for debate though and I personally see alot more subscription based models and DLC packs coming in the future on top of the initial investment for the game.
Welcome to the new age.
s45gr32  +   524d ago
Noooooo!!!! :'( ummm noooo . I am not okay with losing offline single player mode. Can we gamers prevent this from happening.?
mydyingparadiselost  +   524d ago
Aww, *tissue* wipe those tears away it's not going to happen anytime soon, that's for sure.
I think indie devs will offer alot of offline single player since they don't have thousands of cloud computing servers at their disposal and as long as games like Bioshock and The Last of Us do well the single player experience is still going to get made.
How quickly games head toward this fused and connected future is going to depend on the success of the games that take that route. CoD and its success brought multiplayer to every game that didn't need it and future success of these other fused titles will decide how far and wide devs will push that kind of format as well.
In the end the best thing anyone can do to keep the offline SP games going strong is to buy those games and recommend others do the same. Companies can push whatever kind of future but they'll only pursue it if it remains profitable to do so :)
fsfsxii  +   524d ago
I stopped supporting Ubisoft long ago, their tactics with milking games got out of hand really. I agree with you, they got away with endless DLCs and with the AC milking, so i expect them to get away with this, also, none of the game you mentioned looked remotely interesting.
s45gr32  +   524d ago
That is your personal opinion anyhow I can't wait to play Rayman legends, the division which is by far the best looking mmo I have seen and the crew which may end up as the first mmo racer seamless racing challenges, pvp, etc. .......
SilentNegotiator  +   524d ago
I don't think it's core gamers as much as it's just Ubisoft fans. Look at what Ubisoft fans have put up with the last couple years.

They've already faced always online, Uplay, etc.
CyberSentinel  +   524d ago
The only issue I had with XboxOne was the removal of your game library without the 24 hour check. I don't have a problem with the check, per se, If the check finds a game in my library that the license is in dispute, then that game, and that game ONLY, should be disabled, until rectified. Once a game is registered, its license should be unlocked and unlimited. No restrictions! No selling of License, No renting, No trading. ALL DIGITAL is fine with me, as long as NO ONE takes away the games I buy, EVER!
#19 (Edited 524d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
s45gr32  +   524d ago
I tough the division was a mmo shooter like planetside franchise and the crew is an open world racing game. Now it does suck that the crew doesn't offer offline single player mode unless is the first mmo racer which I doubt it. So hopefully but doubtful gamers do something about it and force Ubisoft to change this. Yeah I agree with the blogger too many people flip flopping around I mean were is the gamers pride by letting Ubisoft have always online for the crew but is wrong for Microsoft to do it. Just like is wrong for Microsoft to charge pay to play online but is okay for Sony to do it. Console gamers need to wake up have some integrity....
Dark_Overlord  +   524d ago
I have never once purchased an online only game and never will. Ubi lost a sale from me.
Razputin  +   523d ago
No, no, no, you mean the core console community.

DO NOT get PC gamers confused with console.

While I have quite a few Ubisoft titles, I do in fact have cracks for them, as I do with a lot of titles even though I have the disk and paid for them.

Also I know a good handful of people that will not buy Ubisoft titles, or any that has always on DRM.

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining but stating a fact. I know the what 8 people that won't buy these games don't matter, but don't get these "core console gamers" confused with PC Gamers. Saying this because Ubisofts game are always online for PC only.
MichaelLito79  +   523d ago
I just think the hypocracy needs to end. Bashing the competition and then doing the same thing on your console of choice is another form of hypocracy. If you bash one you should bash the other.
MikeyDucati1  +   523d ago
Didn't know that The Division is always online. Good read btw. Gamers are pretty much hypocrites in everything. Most are just opportunists who side with other gamers just to be recognized by other gamers. It's downright silly and disgusting. I agree wholeheartedly about what you said concerning actions affecting the industry's view and treatment of the gamers. Our actions affect it so many ways.
BitbyDeath  +   521d ago
Same, oh well that is one game i'll be crossing off my list. I'm not going to support any titles that force online for single player.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember