|
Shadow1980 said: Sorry for the late reply. Like I said, I know a lot of people enjoy always-online games. However, not only do I disapprove of always-online games for a more fundamental reason—they are dependent on being able to connect to the game's servers, which will be shut down one day, as attested to by the piles of dead MMOs that litter the landscape of gaming history—but also the entire concept of always-online is inherently exploitable. There was inevitably going to be someone along the line who figured out how to further monetize games, even ones that do have offline components, once they could be connected to the internet, and it would have been a matter of time before it was taken to extremes. It's not just "live service" games like Destiny or Anthem or The Crew or The Division (games that could have easily been tweaked to where most of the game could be played offline). Even game series that worked fine without always-online have been affected. 343 Industries, much to my consternation, forced Halo 5's multiplayer half to be always-online, eliminating local co-op and LAN play, and they were pushing "loot boxes" two years before Battlefront 2 made headlines (fortunately, it seems they are reversing course on this at least partway for Halo Infinite, as local split screen play is returning). If EA, Activision, and Ubisoft went under 20 years ago, whoever the major AAA third parties that would have existed in their stead would have gotten around to doing the same things at some point. Pervasive microtransactions and other predatory practices would still be a thing, maybe earlier, maybe later, but definitely at some point, because large corporations can't let potential new revenue streams go untapped. And mandatory online connections give them greater control over the product, at the expense of the gamer. And now game streaming threatens to make every game, even single-player ones, always-online by default. And some gamers are defending streaming and want it to be the norm. Sure, ideally always-online could potentially be a good thing, but good old-fashioned human nature tends to crush ideals under the bootheel of greed & avarice. Arguably, more bad than good has come from widespread online connectivity in video games. Sure, you and a relative handful of other games might not be playing if it weren't for MMOs or other always-online games (of course, you could have just as easily ended up finding something else that would have rekindled your love of gaming), but I often think that overall it would have better for consumers if video games were never able to connect to the internet. It's hard to argue that the advent of online has been a net positive for gamers as a whole. |
That's understandable, I have to work too which can be a pain to reply to these threads sometimes.
I have to point out some things which I have to disagree with.
1st point is that you stat game servers will be shut down one day. Now for starters, I have been playing a game for more than 14 years (WoW) back in 2005 so that game and many others make that point invalid. Game servers shut down mostly due to the game being dead. I cannot think of any game server which shut down that actually mattered to the public. If a game is popular enough it will have legs and a 14 year life span is more than some physical disks actually last through there life span. I could argue that the material on your hardware and software will wear out before WoW has been closed down. Its really just your perception on the matter. Its like a bad gaming company, if a company is bad they get shut down, that's no different to a service game. In my honest opinion, games that close down are either dead or bad games to begin with.
2nd point is Halo 5 never pushed always online. One of the main reasons for the lack of Co-Op was due to the fact 343 wanted a 60 frame game and didn't want to add an alternative. Halo 5 still offered a campaign and a MP mode which is now brimming with features today. That is a very poor example game to use here. 343 being a good company has learnt what gamers want and are listening so more credit to them.
3rd point is that there is nothing wrong with Streaming, many have painted it as a bad picture. I am not Pro Streaming, however I am not against the option. I heard the exact same thing when Digital media was becoming a thing and many painted Digital gaming as a bad thing because they couldn't own the game. Streaming is just another way to play your Digital games. Sure we have future services like GamePass which we have to rent out however how is that a bad thing? Its full of value and there are many gamers out there on a budget so why is this a bad thing?
As humanity progresses with technology its how we evolve as a specie. Streaming is just another added convenience into us becoming more lazy. To hate it is like you hating Sony for pushing VR, because someone can argue the exact same thing saying VR is going to replace couch controller gaming. The sad thing is, VR will one day replace our way of gaming. Because its the direction technology is taking us. No matter what we do, its unavoidable. In with the new and out with the old. Much like Netflix and the Movie market. People don't want to use DvDs / Blu Rays anymore. They want it at there fingertips.
Convenience is a powerful weapon.
Last edited by Azzanation - on 05 March 2019
