This article summarizes my thoughts (and fears for the future of the industry) perfectly:
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/170243/When_digital_dies_where_does_that_leave_game_preservation.php
Today, I can go play Diablo 1, a game from my childhood that was released 15 years ago. Those of you who are relatively young right now, will you be able to say the same about Diablo 3 in, say, 2025...? :(
Quote from: Chaos on May 19, 2012, 06:02:37 PM
This article summarizes my thoughts (and fears for the future of the industry) perfectly:
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/170243/When_digital_dies_where_does_that_leave_game_preservation.php
Today, I can go play Diablo 1, a game from my childhood that was released 15 years ago. Those of you who are relatively young right now, will you be able to say the same about Diablo 3 in, say, 2025...? :(
Yes. If we still want to play Diablo 3, there will be a way. If, for some reason, Blizzard doesn't patch the game many years down the line to remove the battle.net necessity for single player, people will find a way to modify the game to take out that requirement.
*saw topic title
*looked to see if posted by chaos
Anyway yes I don't like this always online requirement stuff for single player. And I wish they had normal multilayer also if its a type of game. Had no internet for a while and played Fallout. Would be just silly if I had to have internet to play that.
"Oh, looks like the internet is down! Oh well, I'll play games until it comes back...ohwait..."
I agree that games shouldn't require you to be online in order to play them. One of my problems with Steam, though it does sometimes allow me to play games offline.
Not too sure about MMOs, though, the ones where you HAVE to play multiplayer.
Quote from: 11clock on May 20, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
"Oh, looks like the internet is down! Oh well, I'll play games until it comes back...ohwait..."
I agree that games shouldn't require you to be online in order to play them. One of my problems with Steam, though it does sometimes allow me to play games offline.
Not too sure about MMOs, though, the ones where you HAVE to play multiplayer.
Well, yeah, with MMOs, multiplayer is a necessity. But even then, if the companies are going to shut down an MMOs server, they should be required to release the server so that players can host their own private servers, then :T
Wait, hold on, wait... Can't you still play Diablo 1 on it's outdated version of battle.net? I know I did a few years back. In fact, didn't a group of us here do that? Or was that LAN?
Either way, I agree that there will be some way to play these internet-required/always-on games in the future. Look at emulators. Consoles and console cartridges break down over time and become unusable in a lot of cases (obviously the newer games should be more durable, and some people may have kept their old console games in usable condition, but for the most part those things didn't last.) But there is still a way to play those old console games. Computer games have a lot of other issues to deal with as well. OS and driver backwards compatibility may eventually be issues that needs to be addressed. I just don't see internet requirement being a big hurdle.
Yeah, see, the PROBLEM is the trend of where the industry is trying to head, with games no longer being bought and owned, but being merely 'licensed', along with the constant insistence of these companies to REMOVE all these avenues you guys keep bringing up because it might theoretically possibly prevent them from making money at some point in existence. There's still a big grey area argument about the legality of ROMs and emulators, so you can hardly use that as an example for a solution. *I* personally don't have a problem with it, but that's not the point.
And internet requirement DOES become a big hurdle when the company decides to shut down the server the game needs to connect to. Servers cost money, and it's hardly something you can expect to be around forever, and frankly, if you think these companies are responsible enough to patch their games to remove the internet requirement when that time comes, you're being naively optimistic.
Hell, let's take Stick Online v2 as an example. When v3 comes out, is Meiun still going to maintain a server for v2? IIRC, no, he isn't. Is he going to release server code so that the players can run their own server? IIRC, no, he isn't. So where does that leave the people who spent years of their childhood playing Stick Online? They're shit out of luck, and they won't get to play a piece of their gaming history ever again.
No offense intended, Meiun, but it illustrates my point perfectly. I know it's not a huge gaming phenomenon, and I don't expect that every game ever made will be preserved, but that's not the point. It's that, with the trends we're headed towards, and with the fact that companies are more than likely NOT going to patch their games 5 years down the line for one reason or another, we're in for a future where huge chunks of gaming history are set to be lost, never to be experienced again.
EDIT: Incidentally, Lingus, we TRIED to play on Battle.net. It was a broken piece of shit that wouldn't work. We could only get 2 people connected together, and the third person was either unable to connect, or could connect but could only be seen by one of the players in the game. LAN was unplayable, due to it using the IPX protocol for LAN; everything uses TCP/IP nowadays, and IPX is no longer installed by default beyond Win XP, and flat-out doesn't exist for anything beyond Vista 32-bit. Me, Lucifer, and a few others DID manage to finally find a solution when I found an IPX wrapper, and that was....not easy.
Quote from: Chaos on May 22, 2012, 02:59:08 AM
and frankly, if you think these companies are responsible enough to patch their games to remove the internet requirement when that time comes, you're being naively optimistic.
Can't argue anything you're saying, but I can say that I'm not nearly as pessimistic about all of this, so read my response as subjective with regards to my mood and opinions pertaining to all of this, nothing factual.
Quite frankly, if I can't play a game 10 or 12 years from now, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Sure, it'd be a disappointment if I enjoyed it, but only until I decide to do something else, which isn't long when you can rock your ADD as well as I claim I can. We often spend money on things that weren't intended to be dispensed after a month (arbitrary time frame), but they are, I view games the same. Is it money down the drain? Sure, but so is beer, smokes, gas for the trip to the store that didn't have what you were looking for; I'll get over it. I don't get that worked up over the thought of losing a $20-$50 dollar game. Besides, like Jake said, if it's really worth the nostalgia, chances are someone is going to take on the burden of removing the DRM or online requirements.
QuoteI don't get that worked up over the thought of losing a $20-$50 dollar game. Besides, like Jake said, if it's really worth the nostalgia, chances are someone is going to take on the burden of removing the DRM or online requirements.
Archivist and collectors keep things of much lesser value than it was worth at the time. Its not really how much it was worth but the cultural impact it had. And I feel like video games is quite a big part of the entertainment and technology part of are culture. Many people can relate to video games and have been effected by them. I feel like its something worth saving, and the retroactive act of hoping some one will do it after the fact seems a little subpar. But I do hope that last statement holds true. I know there are people that do goto some extremes to save these things but I don't know how many.
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 08:12:53 AM
QuoteI don't get that worked up over the thought of losing a $20-$50 dollar game. Besides, like Jake said, if it's really worth the nostalgia, chances are someone is going to take on the burden of removing the DRM or online requirements.
Archivist and collectors keep things of much lesser value than it was worth at the time. Its not really how much it was worth but the cultural impact it had. And I feel like video games is quite a big part of the entertainment and technology part of are culture. Many people can relate to video games and have been effected by them. I feel like its something worth saving, and the retroactive act of hoping some one will do it after the fact seems a little subpar. But I do hope that last statement holds true. I know there are people that do goto some extremes to save these things but I don't know how many.
Thanks Art, you wrote my entire post for me. :p
As he said, it has nothing to do with wasted money, but the loss of culture. The fact that you'd refer to games like consumables, and not like movies, books, or any other type of art, says a disturbing amount about the mindset the industry has forced upon us. :-\
Quote from: Chaos on May 23, 2012, 12:58:19 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 08:12:53 AM
QuoteI don't get that worked up over the thought of losing a $20-$50 dollar game. Besides, like Jake said, if it's really worth the nostalgia, chances are someone is going to take on the burden of removing the DRM or online requirements.
Archivist and collectors keep things of much lesser value than it was worth at the time. Its not really how much it was worth but the cultural impact it had. And I feel like video games is quite a big part of the entertainment and technology part of are culture. Many people can relate to video games and have been effected by them. I feel like its something worth saving, and the retroactive act of hoping some one will do it after the fact seems a little subpar. But I do hope that last statement holds true. I know there are people that do goto some extremes to save these things but I don't know how many.
Thanks Art, you wrote my entire post for me. :p
As he said, it has nothing to do with wasted money, but the loss of culture. The fact that you'd refer to games like consumables, and not like movies, books, or any other type of art, says a disturbing amount about the mindset the industry has forced upon us. :-\
Maybe I didn't use the right analogies when you make me sound dismissive towards the impact that games have on societies, but my overall message remains the same. The video game industry is continuing to improve, and I look forward to where it's going more than I do dwelling on where it's been. I understand not everyone is going to have this mindset, and they'd like to return back to the days when games left a substantial impact, enough to warrant trying to get a glimpse of what it was like back then; heck I have said urges as well (just not as often as, say, Chaos for instance), and maybe it's a matter of the industry's level of maturity when it comes to preservation.
As Chaos said before, Diablo I right now is near unplayable, and necessitates many hours of hair pulling just to get a few people online. I can't even easily go back and revisit the good ol' days of Commander Keen (yeah, remember that game?) or King's Quest without jumping through laborious hoops and often times illegal (or less than legal) methods of procurement. All the games I came to love as a child are no longer playable. I don't have an NES to play Dig Dug II, I don't have an SNES to play Ogre battle, and 20 years down the line when Blizzard pulls the plug on Diablo III's authentication servers, I won't be able to play that either. I don't see the difference, thus I accept it as natural progression.
I find it kind of unfair I don't get to talk with my great grandmother just because she's dead. Somebody should fix that too. >:(
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on May 23, 2012, 04:23:17 PM
I find it kind of unfair I don't get to talk with my great grandmother just because she's dead. Somebody should fix that too. >:(
Worst.
Analogy.
Ever.
QuoteI don't have an NES to play Dig Dug II, I don't have an SNES to play Ogre battle, and 20 years down the line when Blizzard pulls the plug on Diablo III's authentication servers, I won't be able to play that either. I don't see the difference, thus I accept it as natural progression.
I do feel your mistaken. You can still get a snes or nes and play the games if you really wanted to or just have kept them if you happen to care like Chaos does. They still work fine. The difference here is that you can't do that when the server is down. And their is nothing the user can really do about it. Which is not fun especially when the game has a single player component. (I personally wish games would also have a way to keep the multilayer working by having self hosting, but that's just a wish. :) )
Yes we do have roms and emulators (for past games) or private servers and cracks (for games of today) but I think Chaos's point is that he does not want to rely on those things if he does not need to.
Are you actually against people trying to save this type of media for future consumption or do you not mind if they do? I'm fine if you really don't care about the availability of playing these games later on but actively going against the people who do would be something that I would like for you the elaborate on. That is if you even are against this sort of thing.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on May 23, 2012, 04:23:17 PM
I find it kind of unfair I don't get to talk with my great grandmother just because she's dead. Somebody should fix that too. >:(
fortune tellers :P
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 05:03:50 PM
I do feel your mistaken. You can still get a snes or nes and play the games if you really wanted to or just have kept them if you happen to care like Chaos does.
The point that I was trying to make was that I would have to go through excessive amounts of effort to play the games, not that I can't. I would have to find a console that works, a game cartridge that works, or an emulator that can run a game, whatever the case might be. Just like how 20 years from now I'm going to have to find a game that has been cracked with online requirements removed illegally in order to play it should the servers go offline. Either way, it's more effort than say, going to steam and 3 clicks later having the game playable.
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 05:03:50 PM
Are you actually against people trying to save this type of media for future consumption or do you not mind if they do? I'm fine if you really don't care about the availability of playing these games later on but actively going against the people who do would be something that I would like for you the elaborate on. That is if you even are against this sort of thing.
I don't know why you got the perception that I am, this is just
my standing on
my ability to play games from long ago. To answer your question plainly: no, I am not against people being able to play games from long ago, in any era. I agree, it would be fantastic if we could preserve these games for all time, so that our great-great-great-great-great-great grandtallywackers can see what we did for fun, I just don't get worked up over the thought that someday it's going away.
Now Chaos, get your ass on the internet-required Diablo III that you bought and installed!
Quote from: Scotty on May 23, 2012, 06:08:45 PM
Now Chaos, get your ass on the internet-required Diablo III that you bought and installed!
Now the true colors of this thread come to life...
Seriously just get the damn game Chaos. Internet connection required or not the game is mad http://youtu.be/KqhfLTsEeZg .
Quote from: Scotty on May 23, 2012, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 05:03:50 PM
I do feel your mistaken. You can still get a snes or nes and play the games if you really wanted to or just have kept them if you happen to care like Chaos does.
The point that I was trying to make was that I would have to go through excessive amounts of effort to play the games, not that I can't. I would have to find a console that works, a game cartridge that works, or an emulator that can run a game, whatever the case might be. Just like how 20 years from now I'm going to have to find a game that has been cracked with online requirements removed illegally in order to play it should the servers go offline. Either way, it's more effort than say, going to steam and 3 clicks later having the game playable.
I am kinda confused as to what you where saying then and in the past then.
Quote from: Scotty on May 23, 2012, 06:08:45 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on May 23, 2012, 05:03:50 PM
Are you actually against people trying to save this type of media for future consumption or do you not mind if they do? I'm fine if you really don't care about the availability of playing these games later on but actively going against the people who do would be something that I would like for you the elaborate on. That is if you even are against this sort of thing.
I don't know why you got the perception that I am, this is just my standing on my ability to play games from long ago. To answer your question plainly: no, I am not against people being able to play games from long ago, in any era. I agree, it would be fantastic if we could preserve these games for all time, so that our great-great-great-great-great-great grandtallywackers can see what we did for fun, I just don't get worked up over the thought that someday it's going away.
Sorry for my wording as I did not really want to say that you where. I was just asking to make sure. But other than that you answered what I wanted to know and I am content.
Quote from: Scotty on May 23, 2012, 06:08:45 PMNow Chaos, get your ass on the internet-required Diablo III that you bought and installed!
lol, this (online drm thingy) would probably not stop me from getting the game but i'm not Chaos.
No need to apologize. As I stated previously, these are merely my opinions, which I'm entitled to. Luckily for the topic, no one has tried to argue my opinions. That would just be silly.
Stop thinking differently from the way I do!
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on May 23, 2012, 06:20:29 PM
Quote from: Scotty on May 23, 2012, 06:08:45 PM
Now Chaos, get your ass on the internet-required Diablo III that you bought and installed!
Now the true colors of this thread come to life...
Seriously just get the damn game Chaos. Internet connection required or not the game is mad http://youtu.be/KqhfLTsEeZg .
I bought the game yesterday, tard. I'm waiting for my new GPU to arrive, since my old one died a week or two ago. And just because I bought and intend to play the game doesn't mean I can't hate the fact that it requires you to always be online. There is absolutely no good excuse for why the game can't have an offline single-player mode.
The problem with what you were saying Scott, is that all those things ARE doable. All those games ARE playable. You can buy old game consoles and games online. We have DOSbox. We have emulators for various consoles. Hell, we have Good Old Games, if you want a more legal route.
Diablo 1 isn't unplayable, you can play the ENTIRE game from beginning to end in single player quite easily. Diablo 1's multiplayer is even playable from beginning to end, because it has LAN (though you have to find an IPX wrapper or use a really old OS). Guess what 2 things Diablo 3 doesn't have?
Here's a real good reason that I'm sure you'll be able to understand where I'm coming from, Scott:
Splinter Cell 5: Conviction. Let's say, for example, that Splinter Cell 9 or something comes out in the future. You want to go play the other games so you can get the full story, so you go back and play Splinter Cell 1, 2, 3, 4... Suddenly, you reach #5 and UH OH. Ubisoft decided to be dickholes and make Splinter Cell 5 require you to always be online! And, for the sake of argument, they did it with 6, 7, and 8. Now, being as those were (theoretically) released a while ago, some of them are no longer supported. Now what are you supposed to do? You can't play some of the games in the series and get the full story, cause now some of the games are offline. And, let's face it, reading a plot summary is NOT the same experience.
What if half the Metal Gear series required you to be online? Would you be upset then?
The preservation of game culture is actually one of the major reasons I SUPPORT the ability to "pirate". :T
If/When I have children of my own, I intend to make Super Mario Bros the first game they play. :)
P.S. @Scott:
http://www.gog.com/gamecard/kings_quest_1_2_3
http://www.gog.com/gamecard/kings_quest_4_5_6
Go buy 'em, thundercunt. ;)
Quote from: Chaos on May 23, 2012, 11:11:43 PM
Go buy 'em, thundercunt. ;)
Thanks Carrotnipples, $10 well spent!
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on May 23, 2012, 04:23:17 PM
I find it kind of unfair I don't get to talk with my great grandmother just because she's dead. Somebody should fix that too. >:(
A more accurate analogy would be that somebody killed your grandma for a nickel.
Not entirely DRM related, but this is a win for the anti-internet-only activists:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/05/report-sony-mulls-but-ultimately-rejects-online-only-console
QuoteOne other common topic we?ve seen in the forums is the always-connected experience, and the perception that the online requirement is nothing but an ineffective form of copy protection that has already been cracked. While we?ve never said that this requirement guarantees that there will be no cheating or game cracks, it does help us battle those problems (we have not found any fully functional cracks). More important to us is that the online requirement is critical for the long-term integrity of the game experience. I fully understand the desire to play Diablo III offline; however, Diablo III was designed from the beginning to be an online game that can be enjoyed with friends, and the always-online requirement is the best way for us to support that design. The effectiveness of the online elements -- including the friends list and cross-game communication; co-op matchmaking; persistent characters that you can use by yourself, with others, and in PvP; and some of our customer support, service, and security components -- is tied directly to the online nature of the game. These and other online-enabled features are essential to our design for Diablo III. That said, there are still improvements we believe we can make to expand the online experience and make co-op play even more rewarding, and this will remain one of our priorities moving forward. Overall, while there are some downsides to the online-only approach, I still believe this was the best long-term decision for the game.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/6080663481
Well !@#$, it's staying for good. Hope you guys enjoy rubberbanding and lagging on singleplayer.
I don't. And it's why I've only played the game once since I got it. Bravo, Blizzard. :-\
Hey Chris, take your blood pressure meds before clicking this link (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/ubisoft-drm-exploit-opens-pcs-to-security-risk).
Quote from: Scotty on July 30, 2012, 12:28:30 PM
Hey Chris, take your blood pressure meds before clicking this link (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/ubisoft-drm-exploit-opens-pcs-to-security-risk).
Why? Afraid I'll die laughing? ::)
One can dream.
Quote from: Scotty on July 30, 2012, 07:30:31 PM
One can dream.
In that case, why'd you tell me to take my blood pressure meds? Getting conflicting signals, man.
That's why I arrrrr the games that do this even if I was going to buy it. I should be able to play the game I about whenever the !@#$ I want. Adding this kind of protection is disrespectful to people that actually buy games. It's a slap.
So I'll enjoy the free rum thxbai ~
Quote from: krele on July 31, 2012, 05:14:16 PM
That's why I arrrrr the games that do this even if I was going to buy it. I should be able to play the game I about whenever the !@#$ I want. Adding this kind of protection is disrespectful to people that actually buy games. It's a slap.
So I'll enjoy the free rum thxbai ~
(http://sayforward.com/sites/default/files/ext_image/5189_944d.gif?1268159719)
Quote from: Yankyal on August 15, 2012, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: krele on July 31, 2012, 05:14:16 PM
That's why I arrrrr the games that do this even if I was going to buy it. I should be able to play the game I about whenever the !@#$ I want. Adding this kind of protection is disrespectful to people that actually buy games. It's a slap.
So I'll enjoy the free rum thxbai ~
~gif~
An interesting one I saw a few months ago; it conveys the point nicely.
(Linking it to the image rather than having it show here as it might not be safe for some occasions; mildly NSFW, and a bit gross).
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/files/2010/08/drm-500x476.png
Quote from: sly 3 4 me on August 15, 2012, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Yankyal on August 15, 2012, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: krele on July 31, 2012, 05:14:16 PM
That's why I arrrrr the games that do this even if I was going to buy it. I should be able to play the game I about whenever the !@#$ I want. Adding this kind of protection is disrespectful to people that actually buy games. It's a slap.
So I'll enjoy the free rum thxbai ~
~gif~
An interesting one I saw a few months ago; it conveys the point nicely.
(Linking it to the image rather than having it show here as it might not be safe for some occasions; mildly NSFW, and a bit gross).
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/files/2010/08/drm-500x476.png
HAHA that's so precious! :D