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.
Do you think that a game would play differently if it was intended to be played offline instead of online? Would Diablo 3 play more like Diablo 2 if it wasn't online only? Would KoA be a different game at all played offline? I don't think there's evidence to support that. Authentication is technically a component of your gaming experience, but I think the relationship between it and gameplay is very weak especially when there are plenty of other substantially more important factors (multiplayer support, replay intent, release platform, target audience, and others no doubt).
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.
Fair enough, but which scenario do you actually think is more of a niche?
Further, server discontinuation is far less often authentication servers but rather server host machines. Just because a game authenticates online does not mean it's hosted online, they're very different concepts. When those servers are taken down it means that server hosted games (such as Diablo 2) are no longer accessible, not that the game has been completely shut down. Even then it's dependent on the implementation and most companies continue support well after a game's heyday, the authentication server for NWN came down 'for good' (so it seems) just last year but it doesn't prevent online play still, it's just removed that layer.
Lag I could see as a legit concern. But still requires a server hosted game, which I would think has to be in the minority if for no other reason than cost. For D3 it makes sense, but for other games, it seems unlikely they would actually act as host given amount of hardware and bandwidth that would require.
Server full? Again, most games are not server hosted. At worst there could be an infinitesimal queue time while other people who clicked their "Log in" button before you do are authenticated.
Server down time, well it happens. But that's like not going into the ocean for fear of sharks or going out into a storm because of lightning. The chance is always there but in actuality it won't ever affect most people.
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.
Again, huge logic leap being made here between "online authentication" and "rampant MMO gameplay". If you actually believe it, it could be disturbing. But it's wholly unbelievable.
What specific and distinct changes? You allude to these repeatedly but haven't really given a concrete example.
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.
Some serious FUD in here.
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?
That's a lot of assumptions about a series of events we don't really know anything about to lead into a conclusion that hasn't even manifested itself yet.
I get it, to you 'always online' means everything that's happening is server side and potentially open to anyone else playing the same game. But that's an anomaly if anything. For almost every title mentioned here, "online" is simply referring to a manner of verifying whether or not you own the game. Not how the game is hosted.
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.
I wouldn't say it affects it any more than pre-order bonuses affect the game. In the most literal sense of the word, yes the game is different because of it. But playing single player only puts you at no disadvantage just like buying the game retail instead of getting the pre-order package puts you at no disadvantage, they're simply small rewards given to people who participate in those extraneous programs. In ME3's case GR is simply a multiplier that increases what % of your War Assets are utilized, but as long as you pick up enough assets along the way it makes no difference.
If for some reason they made it so that you needed a certain amount of War Assets only attainable by increasing your GR sufficiently I could see the complaint being valid, but that's not the case.
Facebook
Twitter