Always online and the era of disposable games

[Warmsignal]

The other topic about upcoming games got me thinking of this topic again. It seems like almost every major developer is trying their hand at an always online game nowadays, otherwise known as a here today gone tomorrow game, with no single player option available. Effectively, this makes them long-term rentals, and forces the consumer to move on when the company no longer sees them as profitable. Do you support the no single player, always online formula? Do you buy these games?

I've bought one begrudgingly, but I don't plan to continue supporting this model. There's no legitimate excuse in many cases to exclude an offline mode from the games. It seems to be just another brick in the wall for the forced removal of physical media that publishers have been frothing at the mouth to phase out since the early 2010s. What better way to maximize overall profit for a game company, than to charge gamers to play a game that they don't really own, and aren't entitled to keep playing? That's a publishers dream.

I was in GS earlier and heard yet another preview for an upcoming multiplayer game. It's getting tiresome at this point... I'm actually thankful some of these attempts have gone horribly awry, like Fallout 76... they deserved it's failure. Steep doesn't need to be a game that's always online.... it's a snowboarding game. It's getting ridiculous. I hope how soon this stuff proves disasterous for as many companies as it takes for them to cut this crap out. I think most of us want to own our games. We want to be able to play them single player as well as online. I'm not really all that interested in an a game that I only have a window of opportunity to ever play. I've not opened my copy of Sea of Thieves yet, and I've contemplated selling it so as not to support this model. It looks like a fun game, but it doesn't need to be online, and in 5 years probably won't be available to play anymore. I know some have voiced a boycott of all always online games, and I'm essentially one title away from considering the same.

[seether]

I really dislike it.

Just on principle I try to avoid it, especially single player games.

As soon as the servers are pulled your disc is a paperweight or the access you paid for vanishes.
Moreover, if your internet happens to drop gameplay is interrupted and if your internet is down for a period of time you’re out of luck and can’t play.

Unless I’m really, really keen to play it’s enough of a turn off to not bother. It has killed my interest for games I’d otherwise have wanted to play. Most of the time it makes me not bother at all and sometimes it makes me want to wait for a substantial price drop by which time I don’t care anymore to play.

The only games I’ve bought for any chunk of money that were always online have been HITMAN and HITMAN 2 because I love the series and the gameplay is so unique.

[hoshichiri]

I don't buy any game that doesn't have a single player option, 'always online' or no. There's so many reasons why it's a terrible idea.

For active games, it makes it extra difficult for a new player to start if it's been any length of time since the game's launch- there's no way to learn the controls & get a lil' stash of items going without being gunned down by more experienced players. It's less of an issue in non-combat focused games- I've heard stories of high level No Man's Sky players seeking out new players to shower them with goodies- but there's not a lot of games you can do that in.

For inactive games, it's basically pointless- you get to sit around, hoping someone might show up to play with you- and that's assuming the servers are up. Once had a friend desperate to show us Phantasy Star Online on the GC long after the game was turned off. We made characters, and we... ran around the hub, being told what you used to be able to do & how awesome it was. Not that you could do any of it now, mind you. Probably the most pointless round of gaming I've ever done.

As a general rule, I avoid always online games, but I might pick one up if it has a single player mode, and it's cheap enough. I think I paid 4 bucks for Battleborn new, for example. That way I can probably get my money's worth before the servers go offline, and if I'm lucky they'll patch it to run the single player game offline. Maybe I should put in Battleborn, see if that's been done.

[oldgamerz]

It started to take place on PC games, one relative of mine has a sealed copy of a video game he could never play because as soon as he bought it and payed full price mind you, the company closed down the games servers before he could even install it one time. yup online only

They ran with his money and he is stuck with a box with a useless PC game in it, I don't remember what this game is called sorry, but He I think is somewhat poed about that too.

I am not making this up I am not a modern gamer because of this, I want a game I can play whenever I want and I would like to revisit all games I do play so, this is the nail in the coffin

[oldgamerz]

If In an all digital world

I hope the game companies would use some kind of ROM format. That could be put (in full) and kept on a hard drive. instead of taking the game away when they want.

Companies should resort to smaller file sized video games too.

why do game companies bother with a huge video game game? that all the work will pretty much go to waste (in the future) since it will just be data work tossed into the trash in the future anyway?

 yet we could still buy game digitally and store them on a hardrive, and be able to keep them for as long as we want. Charging money for essentially a rental game that's will be gone. whenever the company shuts down their server is worse than pure BullSh~T.

Just think, best of both worlds for the average video game consumer, if they won't give us anymore physical copies?

at least let us keep (the full video game) on a harddrive and use file compression or make smaller games. darn it.

May I remind you that without hacking a game on the PlayStation 3. You can only back up part of the games patch so they can also take away our 7th and 8th console generation game patches at any time also.

[telekill]

It started last gen and has really taken a foot hold this gen. Out of all the online specific games, oddly, my favorite is Warhawk from PS3. Loved the game. Starhawk wasn't nearly as good. Here's hoping a new Warhawk is in development for PS5, but with a single player offline capability that won't go away when the servers are brought down.

I don't like the practice of disposable games. You put all the time and energy into them only to find that your time was for nothing. I did recently pick up Division 2 but that was specifically because it was co-op oriented and only $5. I don't mind the $5 price tag for a disposable game, but sure as hell not $60.