EA back at it, Sim City 5 will be online/Origin dependent

[Wyndru]

I'm actually really bummed about this. SC4 is one of my only go-to games for when I don't have internet access (great when I'm in a plane or car).

 

[thespyder]

They have to raise the limits sooner or later though. But then the cost that people will no longer spend on cable TV, cell phone minutes, texts, etc, will just translate into higher prices for the internet. So basically these companies will find a way to get the same amount of money out of you without having to innovate, or compete.

Just a year or so ago, i had unlimited data on my phone for $10 a month. (still have unlimited now, but its 30 and throttled etc.) imagine anyone offering that in the future, when you know you can consume any type of media, and make all calls texts through it for 10 a month. A similar service in the not to distant future will probably cost >100 dollars once they fully figure out how to screw people.

kinda sad.

the problem is bandwidth and traffic. The ISPs are having to deal with more and more traffic and are not set up to handle the load. So they jack up their prices in the hopes that some of the volume will fall off. As the technology progresses, things will get better. Ok, they probably won't drop prices, but they will be able to accommodate more people and their traffic.

Online authentication != multiplayer experience

No, but more and more single player games are going the way of the dodo. While games like Diablo were always about the multi-player experience, there was in fact a single player mode that was wholly off line. Now with D3, that is no longer the case (and I bet D4 will be 100% MP). And even SP games like KoA:R, the default method to play is online. And it is (IMHO) wholly unnecessary.

 

[darkewaffle]

No, but more and more single player games are going the way of the dodo. While games like Diablo were always about the multi-player experience, there was in fact a single player mode that was wholly off line. Now with D3, that is no longer the case (and I bet D4 will be 100% MP). And even SP games like KoA:R, the default method to play is online. And it is (IMHO) wholly unnecessary.

Single player and offline are not one and the same. You can play Diablo 3 100% single player if you really wish to, being online has zero impact on you being able to do that. It just affects how often/when.

 

[thespyder]

Single player and offline are not one and the same. You can play Diablo 3 100% single player if you really wish to, being online has zero impact on you being able to do that. It just affects how often/when.

thanks for completely missing the point. In fact it does have an impact if it effects when/how often you can play. That is by definition an impact.

But I was trying to express that games in general are moving away from single player off line. ME3 'Encourages' you to play online in skirmishes in order to raise your resources. Although it isn't a requirement to get the highest resource amount, it is being pushed.

KoA:R was designed specifically with the intent of creating some form of MMO. And the Single player version runs by default online only. To no effect. This isn't authentication as that could be once and done, or even on execution. this is 100% online (as the default setting).

And rumor has it that Elder Scrolls next game is going to be an online MMO style game.

D3 is 100% online with not possibility of playing off line. And playing Single player means creating a multi-player game, only not letting anyone else join you. This is a significant departure from previous games in the series or genre. and it is a disturbing direction in my opinion.

What was being expressed is that quite a lot of players that enjoy these types of games don't want to deal with the crap and whinny, or foul mouthed players, or griefers or attention hogs that are part and parcel of the 'Online' experience. And more and more the single player games are moving in that direction.

Like the other poster stated about not caring about how other players built their city. They just wanted to build and destroy their own. There is value in that game model.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Another love Steam, hate Origin thread. Honestly, I have had issues with steam and was not happy with their customer support. I do appreciate their sales though. And I dont understand the absolute hate for origin. I have used it for DAII and Mass Effect 3 with no problem. I have issues with the quality of both games, but that is an EA/Bioware issue not related really to origin. And both Steam and Origin have offline play for single player, which is the most essential element for me.

I am very much against buying any game which requires one to be always on line for single player, whether it is distributed via Steam, Origin, or DVD. I was really looking forward to Diablo 3, buy the always on-line requirement makes it a no-go for me.

Unfortunately with social gaming, MMOs, and always online DRM, I am afraid the true single player game that you can play alone, offline is almost a thing of the past.

 

[frozentundra123456]

thanks for completely missing the point. In fact it does have an impact if it effects when/how often you can play. That is by definition an impact.

But I was trying to express that games in general are moving away from single player off line. ME3 'Encourages' you to play online in skirmishes in order to raise your resources. Although it isn't a requirement to get the highest resource amount, it is being pushed.

KoA:R was designed specifically with the intent of creating some form of MMO. And the Single player version runs by default online only. To no effect. This isn't authentication as that could be once and done, or even on execution. this is 100% online (as the default setting).

And rumor has it that Elder Scrolls next game is going to be an online MMO style game.

D3 is 100% online with not possibility of playing off line. And playing Single player means creating a multi-player game, only not letting anyone else join you. This is a significant departure from previous games in the series or genre. and it is a disturbing direction in my opinion.

What was being expressed is that quite a lot of players that enjoy these types of games don't want to deal with the crap and whinny, or foul mouthed players, or griefers or attention hogs that are part and parcel of the 'Online' experience. And more and more the single player games are moving in that direction.

Like the other poster stated about not caring about how other players built their city. They just wanted to build and destroy their own. There is value in that game model.

Like my other post sort of said, I totally, totally agree with you. I will be very sad if the next Elder Scrolls game is an MMO, or online only type game. Look what happened to the quality of Bioware single player games after they pursued the MMO route.

 

[Kalmah]

Like my other post sort of said, I totally, totally agree with you. I will be very sad if the next Elder Scrolls game is an MMO, or online only type game. Look what happened to the quality of Bioware single player games after they pursued the MMO route.

I don't think building an MMO has anything to do with their lowering quality of games. It's more like EA forcing their 'formula for success' on the the game development teams.

I'm sure EA are like, "This is our model, you must implement this into your game in any way shape or form." Things on that list include: 100% online neccesity to 'fight piracy', micro transactions, delayed game content sold separately as dlc, simple game for audience of 6 years +, game must be geared for self-fulfillment instead of strategy or difficulty(mindless gaming), game code must be able to run on hardware of lowest common denominator.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I have no issues with Origin. Plus the download speeds are actually better than Steam

I don't want anymore clients though. Steam/Origin is enough.

 

[thespyder]

Like my other post sort of said, I totally, totally agree with you. I will be very sad if the next Elder Scrolls game is an MMO, or online only type game. Look what happened to the quality of Bioware single player games after they pursued the MMO route.

Although as someone already said, to some extent this is EA's influence, you are absolutely right in your point. The more they (game developers in general) play around with MMO style games, the more (traditionally) non-MMO games look and feel more like them.

And there is another component to this. not only are the games designed with other player interaction, they are sanitized and marginalized down so that your Avatar has absolutely no permenant impact on the game world. Monsters don't stay dead, so that others can come along and kill them. Placables don't remain altered/broken/stolen/locked/unlocked/etc... so that others can 'Experience' interacting with them in their native state. And NPCs are genericized such that they have no personality, nor are they objectionable in any manner.

MMOs are fine, in the MMO space. It is where game developers (EA and others) are trying to push everything into the MMO box, make it all online and social gaming that is destroying staple gaming formats.

 

[shortylickens]

Time for some gorilla rape.

Also, this is a classic example of Anti-Midas.

 

[KMFJD]

Origin works fine for me, takes a lot less time to get in game than Steam (Authentication seems to take longer with Steam)

 

[darkewaffle]

thanks for completely missing the point. In fact it does have an impact if it effects when/how often you can play. That is by definition an impact.

But I was trying to express that games in general are moving away from single player off line. ME3 'Encourages' you to play online in skirmishes in order to raise your resources. Although it isn't a requirement to get the highest resource amount, it is being pushed.

KoA:R was designed specifically with the intent of creating some form of MMO. And the Single player version runs by default online only. To no effect. This isn't authentication as that could be once and done, or even on execution. this is 100% online (as the default setting).

And rumor has it that Elder Scrolls next game is going to be an online MMO style game.

D3 is 100% online with not possibility of playing off line. And playing Single player means creating a multi-player game, only not letting anyone else join you. This is a significant departure from previous games in the series or genre. and it is a disturbing direction in my opinion.

What was being expressed is that quite a lot of players that enjoy these types of games don't want to deal with the crap and whinny, or foul mouthed players, or griefers or attention hogs that are part and parcel of the 'Online' experience. And more and more the single player games are moving in that direction.

Like the other poster stated about not caring about how other players built their city. They just wanted to build and destroy their own. There is value in that game model.

Of course they encourage it, if a game has multiplayer it's a huge draw for a lot of people. Providing minor incentives to them for arguably getting the 'complete game experience' is not unreasonable. It's like when I traded Poke'mon to my brother and then they earned bonus experience. It has zero actual effect on the game but gives you something small in return for going out there and trying it.

Disturbing is a pretty hyperbolic word for the situation. You can play Diablo 3 in 100% solitude if you wish, just like you could Diablo 2 and Diablo 1, the only difference is now you can't do it on a desert island. I can literally count on one hand the number of times I've played a game on a PC over the last five years without a network connection, and that was only because I was riding a train across Pennsylvania. Hell if they added a "Single Player" button that simply created a locked down server side game for them, the vast majority of people would never be able to tell the difference.

But the idea was that online verification does not impact your ability to play a game without the 'interference' of multiplayer which is the fairly ridiculous notion being bandied about. Seriously, there's concern that your Sim City might get invaded or trolled? It's absurd that people are making the logic leap from "online drm authentication" to "integrated, unavoidable, unrestricted MMO gameplay".

 

[sactoking]

I'm pretty much at the point where if a game isn't offered DRM-free from Amazon or GOG I don't buy it.

 

[wanderer27]

I'm pretty much at the point where if a game isn't offered DRM-free from Amazon or GOG I don't buy it.

Been there for quite some time myself.

I think Spore is what broke the proverbial DRM back for me.
Since then, I've been vehemently anti-DRM and just won't tolerate such nonsense any longer.

The last game I bought from a major publisher was a de-DRM'd version, that's the only way I'd get it.



.

 

[KentState]

I might have to stick the last bastion for physical media and starting reading books again. Given enough time, they will disappear also.

 

[thespyder]

Of course they encourage it, if a game has multiplayer it's a huge draw for a lot of people. Providing minor incentives to them for arguably getting the 'complete game experience' is not unreasonable. It's like when I traded Poke'mon to my brother and then they earned bonus experience. It has zero actual effect on the game but gives you something small in return for going out there and trying it.

Um, not zero impact. not by a long chalk. Please read my full post. Impact from accessability of the game, direction and design of the game. All far from zero impact.

Disturbing is a pretty hyperbolic word for the situation. You can play Diablo 3 in 100% solitude if you wish, just like you could Diablo 2 and Diablo 1, the only difference is now you can't do it on a desert island. I can literally count on one hand the number of times I've played a game on a PC over the last five years without a network connection, and that was only because I was riding a train across Pennsylvania. Hell if they added a "Single Player" button that simply created a locked down server side game for them, the vast majority of people would never be able to tell the difference.

and that is you. My experience is much different. I routinely fly places and have no access to internet on the plane, in the airport, etc.... And let me tell you that Most hotels charge for internet. Also, there are a fair number of storms that will at times disconnect the game. And during high traffic times, the ping rate can be horrible. and that isn't even counting problems at the source, say if the company takes down their server for mantenance, or discontinues supporting the game. And let's talk about 'Server Full', shall we? Wait times to get into a game that, if off line, would not exist.

As for telling the difference, that is highly subjective.

But my comment about the trend being disturbing is exactly what I meant. there is a distinct trend towards requiring online play. Even for games like KoA:S where there is no need or reason for it (other than DRM which could be handled as a one time or 'on execute' one ping). And there have been specific and distinct changes in the design and direction of games to make them more 'online friendly'. And for online social games, that is fine. But I don't want my RPG solo effort games to all of the sudden be made so that my Avatar isn't 'The hero of the land' and made into 'One of 50,000 other heroes roming the land, killing the exact same bad guys OVER AND OVER AND OVER, farming and grinding for that special unique drop'. yet that is the way game development is going. I find that HUGELY disturbing.

But the idea was that online verification does not impact your ability to play a game without the 'interference' of multiplayer which is the fairly ridiculous notion being bandied about. Seriously, there's concern that your Sim City might get invaded or trolled? It's absurd that people are making the logic leap from "online drm authentication" to "integrated, unavoidable, unrestricted MMO gameplay".

Which only proves that you haven't a clue what is being discussed.

Always online doesn't have no impact. as has been discussed quite a lot.

and, although this is a totally separate issue, since you mentioned it, being online means being online, and all that goes with it. Means you are subject to internet intrusion, a concern that does not happen if you are off line. So your crack about 'invaded' has very real impact. Not that someone might pop into your game of Skyrim and start fighting monsters with you, but they might pop in and steal your identity or your financial information. Or planting worms and viruses. The fact that there is an extrance into your computer that is required to be open while you play is a risk that some players may chose not to entertain when they are playing solo. And you want to know what population has a higher than average Tech ability and interest in hacking? PC Gamers.

But there are other issues, not the least of which is that games which would routinely be single player are now being Designed with Multi-player and Online features. Features that players like myself have serious concerns about. Once I kill a given bad guy boss, I don't expect him to magically respawn for the next adventurer to kill. But games are being designed that way. I don't expect that treasure and plants and loot to suddenly respawn out of no where so that 'in the chance of multi-player' others can benefit.

These are very definite impacts from the trend towards 'always on online'. Developers start out with 'Let's make Star Craft 2 always online'. Then, while we are at it, let's make the game 'Multi-player friendly'. Then, instead of coding one thing for the single player and another for the multi-player, let's save some money and build one engine. No one 'Really' only plays single player, so the minor few won't mind the changes.' See the trend?

 

[wanderer27]

But my comment about the trend being disturbing is exactly what I meant. there is a distinct trend towards requiring online play. Even for games like KoA:S where there is no need or reason for it. And there have been specific and distinct changes in the design and direction of games to make them more 'online friendly'. And for online social games, that is fine. But I don't want my RPG solo effort games to all of the sudden be made so that my Avatar isn't 'The hero of the land' and made into 'One of 50,000 other heroes roming the land, killing the exact same bad guys, farming and grinding for that special unique drop'. yet that is the way game development is going. I find that HUGELY disturbing.

Didn't you know that it's Politically Incorrect to be "unique"?

How dare you



.

 

[thespyder]

Didn't you know that it's Politically Incorrect to be "unique"?

How dare you

I'm a rebel.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Of course they encourage it, if a game has multiplayer it's a huge draw for a lot of people. Providing minor incentives to them for arguably getting the 'complete game experience' is not unreasonable. It's like when I traded Poke'mon to my brother and then they earned bonus experience. It has zero actual effect on the game but gives you something small in return for going out there and trying it.

Disturbing is a pretty hyperbolic word for the situation. You can play Diablo 3 in 100% solitude if you wish, just like you could Diablo 2 and Diablo 1, the only difference is now you can't do it on a desert island. I can literally count on one hand the number of times I've played a game on a PC over the last five years without a network connection, and that was only because I was riding a train across Pennsylvania. Hell if they added a "Single Player" button that simply created a locked down server side game for them, the vast majority of people would never be able to tell the difference.

But the idea was that online verification does not impact your ability to play a game without the 'interference' of multiplayer which is the fairly ridiculous notion being bandied about. Seriously, there's concern that your Sim City might get invaded or trolled? It's absurd that people are making the logic leap from "online drm authentication" to "integrated, unavoidable, unrestricted MMO gameplay".

I have no problem with online authentication once, but what I resent is always on-line requirement. And I have no problem with multiplayer for those who want to play it if it does not affect the single player experience.

I do very much resent the multiplayer component of mass effect 3 however. First they said it would not affect the single player game, which was not true because it affected your galactic readiness. So I played multiplayer when I really wanted to be playing the single player campaign because I thought I could get a better ending. The final joke is on me though, because even though I let myself be manipulated into playing multiplayer, the ending sucked anyway.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I might have to stick the last bastion for physical media and starting reading books again. Given enough time, they will disappear also.

Have you heard of Kindle? Physical books may already be on the way out too. But I have to agree with you, I am becoming much less interested in PC gaming due to MMOs and social gaming genres basically taking over. Sad really, the lack of true single player developers that are left. I thought Bethesda might hold out, but according to the rumors, apparently not.

 

[thespyder]

Have you heard of Kindle? Physical books may already be on the way out too. But I have to agree with you, I am becoming much less interested in PC gaming due to MMOs and social gaming genres basically taking over. Sad really, the lack of true single player developers that are left. I thought Bethesda might hold out, but according to the rumors, apparently not.

It is going the same was as most television these days. Almost everything is 'Reality' TV or something that is so dumbed down and genericized that you can watch one show and have seen them all. assuming you can stomach the lowest common denominator formula.

Very few shows are anything like original anymore. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Spartacus, Walking Dead. Pretty much nothing else. Sad really.

And as for books, absolutely. When Borders closed their doors it was a sad day indeed. I could spend hours and hours, and lots of bucks in there any time. Shame about the death of it all.

 

[Martimus]

I like the multi-player aspect of this. But there will still be times when single player is necessary.

Big camping trip last summer. Guess who was playing sim city 4 on a laptop in the backseat during the drive? In 15 years, guess who isn't going to be playing sim city 5 on laptop in backseat?

Also, EA simply cannot be trusted. Without a shred of doubt simcity5 validation servers will be shutdown upon arrival of simcity6.

Can I buy this game and punch EA in the face at the same time? That's the only way I'm not going to feel disgusted with myself for buying it.

EAs validation servers for Dragon Age were shut down for two weeks before they finally fixed it. I was unlucky enough to try to install the game in the beginning of that time and even though there were dozens of threads of this problem in their support area, they didnt admit that tbe server went down until 2 weeks later when they fixed it. Havent bought an EA game since.

The thing that really upset me isnt that it took them two weeks to realize their server was down even though nearly every help request was for activating Dragon Age during that time, it was the fact that during that time they went out of their way to blame the problem on the customer each time. Regardless of actual fault, blaming a problem with your service on your customers will just make them angry and likely make them avoid your products in the future.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I recently bought a game from the XBL marketplace, and i wondered how it would handle the game when offline.

To my surprise, i think MS has it figured out, and hopefully steam and origin follow suit.

Basically the first console i had to install to it was locked to for a certain amount of time. I could play offline to whatever console it was registered to. IF i wanted to move it permanently to a different console i could, but theres a limit to how often i could move it.

Worst case scenario, if i was signed online, i could play no matter what, but at least the completely offline option was there.

 

[CottonRabbit]

I recently bought a game from the XBL marketplace, and i wondered how it would handle the game when offline.

To my surprise, i think MS has it figured out, and hopefully steam and origin follow suit.

Basically the first console i had to install to it was locked to for a certain amount of time. I could play offline to whatever console it was registered to. IF i wanted to move it permanently to a different console i could, but theres a limit to how often i could move it.

Worst case scenario, if i was signed online, i could play no matter what, but at least the completely offline option was there.

MS hasn't figured anything out. Both Steam and Origin have an offline mode. Certain games are online only, but the systems themselves do not require a 24/7 connection. You can also install your games to however many computers you want.

 

[pontifex]

It is going the same was as most television these days. Almost everything is 'Reality' TV or something that is so dumbed down and genericized that you can watch one show and have seen them all. assuming you can stomach the lowest common denominator formula.

Very few shows are anything like original anymore. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Spartacus, Walking Dead. Pretty much nothing else. Sad really.

And as for books, absolutely. When Borders closed their doors it was a sad day indeed. I could spend hours and hours, and lots of bucks in there any time. Shame about the death of it all.

Game of Thrones - medieval fantasy
Walking Dead - Zombie survival
Spartacus - Roman empire

you call those all original? there are tons of movies on all of those subjects.