4 ms·

>People love to bandy Diablo 3 about, but the thing is that it's the only game that they can reasonably bandy about and that was released 10 years ago in May.

• hedgewitch 5y ago
  > Hardly. Diablo 3 is probably the most famous example (partly because it's so popular, partly because it's direct predecessor didn't have an always-online requirement), but hardly the only one. Google "online only single player game" and you're bound to find a list. If this is that big of an issue, shouldn't you already know the examples and be able to list them off? > If I have a disc or any other physical item I can at least take measures to protect it. I could conceivably put the console with the disc inside it in a closet, come back in thirty years, and play the game. I could back it up and wait for someone to make an emulator for the console. If the game needs a remote server to be up to run, there is nothing I can do to ensure I can continue playing the game in the future (other than painstakingly reverse-engineer the server). That's difference between owning something and not: control. Ah, yes, so instead of waiting for someone to reverse engineer the server, you're waiting for someone to reverse engineer the console so that it remains playable in perpetuity. That's definitely different.
  • deadbeeves 5y ago
    I can list the two I've played: Elite Dangerous and Planetary Annihilation. Another one I can name is The Crew. Yes, there's not that many, but I never said it was a huge problem, I just responded to your assertion that the only reason such games are online only is because of what players want. That's plainly false. >Ah, yes, so instead of waiting for someone to reverse engineer the server, you're waiting for someone to reverse engineer the console so that it remains playable in perpetuity. That's definitely different. You're responding to a specific example rather than the underlying point. That point being: when you own something you're free to do with it as you please. You don't need to ask for permission to read a book you own, although you do need to physically have the book on you to do so, and it needs to be intact enough that you can understand what's printed on it. A PlayStation game on a CD follows those same rules. Always online games don't.
    • hedgewitch 5y ago
      > I can list the two I've played: Elite Dangerous and Planetary Annihilation. Another one I can name is The Crew. I don't know enough about Planetary Annihilation, but Elite: Dangerous and The Crew were definitively designed to instance you to make it feel like things were going on around you. The only functional difference between them and MMOs is the amount of players you see at once. They were made to be played online, allowing you to seamlessly move from going it alone to playing with others. This goes back to my "people want the interconnectedness" point. Allowing you to instance yourself out doesn't change that. > You're responding to a specific example rather than the underlying point. No, you're missing my point entirely, which is that there's a maintenance cost to perpetuity. It's just placed somewhere else in this case.
      • deadbeeves 5y ago
        Elite Dangerous has a multiplayer mode, but also a single player mode. Single player is single player, there's no reason to be connected, other than to make sure the player has not done something naughty with their copy. >No, you're missing my point entirely, which is that there's a maintenance cost to perpetuity. It's just placed somewhere else in this case. And what you're missing is that "perpetuity" is a lie. In practice most online games don't even to ten years before the developers shut their servers down permanently. If you really love Elite and you think it's the best game ever, you can take measures to continue playing it today, 38 years after it came out. Do you think Elite Dangerous will continue being profitable for another 30 years?