The Failure of Always Online Games

The Gaming Heretic talks about why the trend of the Industry to move 'always online' is a bad one. It has a negative impact on gaming and ultimately means that a game you enjoy will one day be unplayable when the servers go down.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Software_Lover1481d ago

This isn't any new found information.

TheGamingHeretic1481d ago

Thus why its an opinion piece. It's a reflection of the overall frustration with the most recent issues with Destiny and other games.

XBLSkull1481d ago (Edited 1481d ago )

The argument isn't valid, you can face the same problem over a power outage. A few online hiccups from time to time are such a minor inconvenience it isn't even funny.

Don't like Destiny or DieAblo's policies? Don't buy them, most of us don't care. We'll have fun with the game for a few weeks and move on to the next one.

brish1481d ago


The major difference is the power almost never goes out.

With always online games it seems like they never work on release.

3-4-51481d ago

Generator fixes the Power problem...

What about the internet....o yea.

lemoncake1481d ago

All those millions of wow players must be feeling pretty stupid right now having got suckered into the short lived fad that is online only gaming.

Godmars2901481d ago

WoW is one thing, but its an insult to MMOs to call Destiny one.

Spotie1481d ago

Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's fine for some games to be that way. But every game requiring an online connection, regardless of genre or number of players? That's a mistake I hope gaming never makes.

rainslacker1481d ago

Well...when my net connection goes out, I can't play wow, so I play another game on my PS4. If all games require an internet connection, then when the net goes out, I can neither play wow, or any other video game.

Hopefully that makes it clearer for you.

Godmars2901481d ago

Isn't the reason these lizard guys are doing these attacks is to promote off-line games?

Not trying to justify what they're doing, but still, "innovation" in gaming these days tend to be something which benefits publishers at the cost of consumer rights. And by and large gamers seem to be defending or at least not realizing what they're losing.

kurruptor1481d ago

If they have to purposefully go out of their way and spend their time trying to take down the servers. I don't see that they are proving anything.

If it wasn't for them, I'm not sure we would have heard about the servers being offline.

Godmars2901481d ago

But then their point is that after a customer spent upwards to hundreds on a single game, when ever a publisher feels like that game wont make them anymore money, they can just pull the plug and the customer has nothing to show for it. Aside from an empty wallet.

kurruptor1481d ago

Can you give recent examples of when a game's server getting shutdown was such a big controversy? Games that had a single-player component that required you to be online for it.

Godmars2901481d ago

That's the exact point: when the servers for last year's version of Madden get shut down forcing everyone following the series to buy the newer Madden, it wont be a big deal. Only a minority will really be effected or complain.

There are no "big" examples of this. Just small ones. Capcom tying old arcade titles to DRM during the PS3/360 days. EA with Dungeon Master and the SIMs on PC and tablets. The XB1 and its original DRM that likely would have been a series of small incidents which everyone would have been given no real choice but to get use to.

kurruptor1481d ago

Sorry, but that is exactly MY POINT.

There has never been any controversy over a game's servers being shutdown.

Specifically there has never been a game that could have been offline supported, but was forced online required.... being shutdown early and causing an uproar.

People are worried that Destiny's servers might get shutdown after a few years? But, I thought this game sucked so bad that you are bored of it after a week.

If they shut down Diablo 3 right now, I would understand their point.

Godmars2901481d ago

The full point is that if these lizard guys aren't just doing it for their own attention, they're trying to bring to the attention of the majority of gamers which only effects a minority. Because by the publishes being able to shut down servers at their discretion becomes an issue of the majority, it will be too late. Such an option which gives companies more rights than consumers will have been well in place.

Then again since the only which would cause companies to reverse what's already in motion would be for people to not buy effected games for the exact reason of DRM, that these lizard guys are only being condemned for the inconveniences they cause, there's really no point to it.

People should have bought the XB1 as it originally was.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1481d ago
rainslacker1481d ago

I really don't believe that LS has any kind of altruistic intentions behind their attacks. They started it off to just be dicks, and then decided to make it into a campaign about how insecure the servers they were attacking were when they got some attention. I never even heard that they were championing the cause of offline games.

They just seem like they want to be people who want to stand up for the little man when the little man didn't ask them to, and in such a way that actually hurts the little man.

However, what they did/are doing(allegedly) is a prime example of why digital still needs some work, because things like this aren't uncommon, and there are real people out there that would do stuff like this maliciously. Most people would be shocked at just how insecure and prone to attack the internet(or their personal computers) really is. Anyone that's taken a network security class will know this.

cruzngta1481d ago

Titanfall and Destiny should have both had OFFLINE single player campaigns AND possibly bots mode if applicable. Online only needs to go away with the whole 'you need to be connected for the evolving world our game is in' it could be updated when you connect to apply any revisions and that would suffice. A person who pays for a product should be able to play it whatever way they like be it offline or online. What good is an 'evolving' world if you cant get a connection or some hacker group decides to take down the servers??? Hopefully this will come to an end and give players BOTH single player offline AND online components in ALL future games.

rainslacker1481d ago

I have to disagree on one point. The game was made as an online only game. Because of that, people should know what to expect, and with that expectation they would know the possible downfalls. Basically, I don't expect any MMO to have an offline mode, and for a game like TF or Destiny, if a SP wasn't available then so be it(I personally won't buy it).

I don't think that the world of Destiny(and certainly not TF) is ever-evolving or persistent enough to warrant an online only mode though.

I do agree that an offline mode would be good, as it would likely have helped sales, and allow playing when the net is being screwy.

Exies71481d ago

I enjoy online only games.

Not every game should cater to every type of gamer and complaining about this stuff is redundant and asinine.

Nobody is forcing you to purchase anything.

DivoJones1481d ago

Exactly.. being online-only allows more dynamic content. Like how Titanfall could patch seamlessly without forcing an xbox update.

But like they said in the article and has been said in the past, it also means once the servers shut down the game is done. Makes sense for digital games, but if I own a disc I always expect to be able to put it in the drive and play.

Show all comments (25)