Ubisoft's new deal, for new games. Players must be connected to play offline...

[Qpassa]

How much time is going to deal Oleg with this kind of people ?

[=FPS=Salsero]

I am not trying to frighten anyone, but absolutely definitely, in no case will I buy any game that requires a constant internet connection, unless it is essential for a gameplay.
For exactly that reason I did not buy the Rise of Flight. They are quite happy with their decision, I am quite happy without their game... total satisfaction...

Need I post a photo of the row of Il-2 boxes (AFAIK, I do own both of them, just being away from home), jewel cases with mission packs, Platinum collection, etc. on my shelf ?

[mazex]

Well, it's too bad that all the attempts of making good and non-intrusive DRM systems fail... It feels like the online authentication variant is the only one that really works in the long run, and I don't mind if games use it to get the money needed to develop niche games. Sure - thats easy saying sitting on a 100 Mbit fibre connection that is rock solid and never goes down (great telecom infrastructure in Sweden - maybe 2 hours of Internet downtime in 3 years...)

Edit - happy owner of RoF, and plays Silent Hunter III regularly with no Starforce problems... Will buy SH5 and SoW too (which probably will have some online authentication system to - at least for multiplayer).

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by mazex

happy owner of RoF, and plays Silent Hunter III regularly with no Starforce problems... Will buy SH5 and SoW too (which probably will have some online authentication system to - at least for multiplayer).

I have SH3, and I bought it after the disc check (star force) was removed from what I recall, which was years ago. Soo star force shouldn't be a hassle for you with SH3

Adobe Photoshop and Corel Painter have 'licensing' (i.e. DRM) software running constantly on one's computer as 'services' if the programs are installed. Very shitty stuff.

No matter what copy protection system, everything can and does get it's DRM removed if it attracts the attention of talented software engineers, and VERY ironically it makes the user distributed versions more desirable to acquire than the publisher distributed versions. Something has gone wrong when the officially distributed version (which they want money for) is inferior to the free versions. At least with the Silent Hunter series one gets a peachy map in the DVD case (I love those things!)

[robtek]

Steel Beasts pro is protected by dongle.
The dongle is quite secure and for Software with a long lifecycle the few euros / dollars more shouldn't matter.
It seems privacy has a price nowadays.

[MikkOwl]

Dongles use a USB port do they not? I remember that "RoboCop 3" for my Amiga 500 had a dongle (which was of shitty quality and it broke, and a friend's father repaired it for me). If it uses a USB port, that is not a good thing. Having to keep track of that dongle is also unecessary annoyances for the consumer.

Dongles do 'something', don't remember what exactly, read some details of one for some audio software once. And that too could be and was cracked - some user made software interfaced and behaved just like the dongle did, enabling anyone to use the application without a dongle.

I find no moral problem with any entrepreneurs using all kinds of (legal, non evil) methods to encourage people to give them money for the software they developed. But the way some go about it is just hostile to consumers, and so consumers choose not to give them their money, which is not immoral either, especially in that circumstance.

[billswagger]

Gaming this way would make no difference to me. I usually play online where a decent connection is required anyway. I also think the industry recognizes that establishing a multiplayer online community is the the key to longevity of a game.
I can't think of a strictly offline game that i would play more than a month or two and for that reason i tend to not even buy those games.

I can't really say much about this approach, but i have no reason to bash it either.
I suppose people are turned off by the idea because it scares them that they have less control as an end user. The way i see it, if i can play a sim with less lag or bugs because it requires every user to have a connection, then i'd be all for it. I get really irritated with some games and the amount of bugs they have even with out such a system.

I don't think the sim world has much to fear with this approach being that most coders and programmers as well as video game producers are aware of the tech side of the industry.
It would only hurt their game if they limited the capacity to utilize the newest sticks, or TIR functions. I just don't see that happening.

The player that loses out is the offliner. As in, no connection. i don't see a user with a computer and no connection being PC savy to the point where gaming would be important to them. I see a lot of negative views toward this approach, but most of you do have a capable connection if you are able to post a rant that opposes it.
Given the world internet market, the 2 percent that don't buy into this idea will not hurt the gaming companies that use this. If I had to lose 5 percent of my customers to shield 30 percent of my profits from piracy then i would do it.
This may also deter other damages that can be incurred on the user end through out the life of the game as its interworkings and exploits are realized.


SOW, as i understand it, will have subsequent planes added to it which can be purchased much like RoF now. What would keep a consumer from buying a plane and disributing it to other players at no cost or lower cost?

What would be the alternative, if you hate the idea of a required connection so much?





Bill