3 ms·

"I can offer online-only services that actually add to the game experience." It doesn't matter what they are, what they do, or whether or not the network aspec

"I can offer online-only services that actually add to the game experience." It doesn't matter what they are, what they do, or whether or not the network aspect of these services/features is integral to them - pirates and consumers who insist that any features not on the disc at install-time are an inconvenience will still cry DRM. Are these "online services" integral to the game? If they are, then what happens when they go down? It's really not much different than what happened when the Assassin's Creed 2 validation servers fell over. Are they not integral to the game? Then pirates will do without them or find ways to replace them, and some people will still bitch that they shouldn't be so inconvenient. There's no getting around the fact that creating copies of a digital work is free, and so there's no solution that's going to make everyone happy. It's unfortunate, because every developer now feels the need to create online services as a part of their game, even if their idea doesn't really call for it.

higher 16y ago
It is pretty easy to distinguish DRM from net-enabled features. You simply need to ask "Could the feature exist without an internet connection?" You claim that users will conflate the two regardless, but I doubt this. Imagine an alternate dimension in which StarCraft shipped with LAN support but never supported online play over Battle.net. The StarCraft community would be based on gamer-oriented VPNs, and would likely be about as healthy as it has become in our dimension. If, when StarCraft II was announced, players learned that LAN play would still be supported, but play over Battle.net had been added, I don't think very many people would complain that the product had been deliberately crippled. In our world, StarCraft supported LAN play and Battle.net play, while StarCraft II does not support any type of multiplayer other than over Battle.net. Battle.net play has resulted in half-second latency for all players and several days of downtime since release. Additionally, it is known that a "Professional" version of StarCraft II exists that supports LAN play - the feature has simply been removed from the retail version. I think it is pretty clear which of these is a feature and which is not.

higher 16y ago

It is pretty easy to distinguish DRM from net-enabled features. You simply need to ask "Could the feature exist without an internet connection?" You claim that users will conflate the two regardless, but I doubt this. Imagine an alternate dimension in which StarCraft shipped with LAN support but never supported online play over Battle.net. The StarCraft community would be based on gamer-oriented VPNs, and would likely be about as healthy as it has become in our dimension. If, when StarCraft II was announced, players learned that LAN play would still be supported, but play over Battle.net had been added, I don't think very many people would complain that the product had been deliberately crippled. In our world, StarCraft supported LAN play and Battle.net play, while StarCraft II does not support any type of multiplayer other than over Battle.net. Battle.net play has resulted in half-second latency for all players and several days of downtime since release. Additionally, it is known that a "Professional" version of StarCraft II exists that supports LAN play - the feature has simply been removed from the retail version. I think it is pretty clear which of these is a feature and which is not.