3 ms·
You're failing to draw a distinction between always-on DRM and multiplayer server capacity. Look at what you just said: > Of course it's to do with [DRM]. If i
by georgespencer 14y ago
You're failing to draw a distinction between always-on DRM and multiplayer server capacity. Look at what you just said:
> Of course it's to do with [DRM]. If it [was a single player game], there would be no issues at all.
The two are unrelated. If it was a single player game we wouldn't be having these issues... because it wouldn't need server capacity to play, which is nothing to do with DRM. It could still have always-on DRM.
- blaabjerg 14y agoCould you play single player games while they were having server issues?
- efdee 14y agoFact is that DRM is the real reason why the game is heavily multiplayer. Older versions were always single player and there is no reason they couldn't at least have implemented this mode in the new game other than having an excuse to put some of the logic on a server to thwart piracy. And that is what is causing the current problems.
- shadowfox 14y ago> Fact is that DRM is the real reason why the game is heavily multiplayer Perhaps. I had be interested in your sources for this fact though. Otherwise it feels like opinion being stated as fact.
- alberich 14y ago> If it was a single player game we wouldn't be having these issues... because it wouldn't need server capacity to play, which is nothing to do with DRM. It could still have always-on DRM. Well, if the players still had to be connected to the servers (always-on) to play, maybe the same problems would arise even though the players wouldn't be interacting. The strange aspect of this is that their infrastructure seems to be static. In this modern age of cloud computing, why not make the number of game servers elastic? That would bring safety to them and savings by reducing the number of idling servers when demand is low.