By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Always Online Gaming is the bane of my Existence

 

Does Always Online Requirements bother you?

Yes, It does. 32 72.73%
 
Not bothered by it. 12 27.27%
 
Total:44

Yes it is bad.

Internet has not done the world of gaming any favors. It’s not because of my connection, I mean that’s excellent here, but it’s the fact that other players, unless they’re on the couch next to you, in any capacity always ruin a game. I don’t want or need to interact or be social with anyone. When I want to do that, I’ll contact a friend.

Then, there’s the fact that you’re basically enslaving yourself to the publisher, a more pressing concern. They decide when and for how long you can actually play their game. When support stops, or servers shut down, it’s all over. This means there are games I can buy now, for full price, that I couldn’t potentially play anymore five years from now. Meanwhile, my 2600 games from 40 years ago still work exactly as intended and as if they were just bought. In fact there already are games that are no longer playable. People will find out soon enough though, and if publishers putting more and more crap into games, a bubble will burst at some point.

Luckily for me, and us, there’s still good publishers out there and there are plenty of games to still play from generation’s past. No need to bend to a publisher’s will.



Around the Network
noname2200 said:
Azzanation said:

Than games like MMORPGs will be crap.

What you mean "then"?

Games like Apex Legends, World of Warcraft, League of Legends and many more wouldnt exist or be great without the always online platform.



I have a stable connection and I tend to only play games that have little or nothing to do with online, but yeah. It bothers me. I'm worried about the future. The way things are going, maybe at some point it will become mandatory to subscribe to PS Plus to be able to play any game at all.



It doesn't bother me when it works, but when it often doesn't like Dirt Rally it can be really annoying.



My Etsy store

My Ebay store

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

I rarely play games online, as i just greatly prefer single player story driven games.



Around the Network
Azzanation said:

Games like Apex Legends, World of Warcraft, League of Legends and many more wouldnt exist or be great without the always online platform.

 

Azzanation said:

Than games like MMORPGs will be crap.

Sure, lots of people may have enjoyed those games, but publishers see the success of those games and they want a slice of the pie. Every time a WoW or Fortnite hits it big, you'll see a bunch of copycats. This is an industry that loves to chase trends, after all. And these "live services," be they  MMOs, "quasi-MMOs" (e.g., Destiny), or competitive multiplayer-only games (e.g., battle royales, MOBAs, and more traditional genres & subgenres), are the ideal avenue for big publishers to unleash all the awful bullshit upon gamers that we've seen this generation. These are games ripe for exploitation, of having a bunch of predatory, manipulative, and obtrusive post-launch monetization schemes crammed into them. It's got the likes of EA and Activision seeing massive dollar signs. And it's not good for the industry. There's only so many "live service" titles that the industry can reasonably support, yet too many companies want to shift resources away from traditional single-player titles just to try to cannibalize the market for these online-only social games.

Honestly, I'd argue that the only worthwhile things to come out of online are indies and the ability to patch titles after launch, though in regards to the latter most of the notable patches we've seen has dealt with online components of games, so even that one's questionable. I'd maybe also argue that expansions & DLC were a good thing that could breathe new life into older games, and is arguably better than what we had to deal with in the 90s with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 3 (roster expansions meant buying the whole game all over again), but then again DLC mutated from something benign into the microtransaction/loot box filled miasma that permeates AAA gaming these days, so maybe we'd have been better off if DLC never existed to begin with.



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

It does seem like a step backward. 



I hate games like division and anthem with the system that rely on internet connection to even do things like damage calculation on enemies, just like WTF? One of the biggest reason I quit playing division is every time I shot enemies it takes seconds to see them taken down, so disgusted by those unnecessary lag caused by bad internet even in campaign mode which should have been enjoyed going solo.



Shadow1980 said:

Sure, lots of people may have enjoyed those games, but publishers see the success of those games and they want a slice of the pie. Every time a WoW or Fortnite hits it big, you'll see a bunch of copycats. This is an industry that loves to chase trends, after all. And these "live services," be they  MMOs, "quasi-MMOs" (e.g., Destiny), or competitive multiplayer-only games (e.g., battle royales, MOBAs, and more traditional genres & subgenres), are the ideal avenue for big publishers to unleash all the awful bullshit upon gamers that we've seen this generation. These are games ripe for exploitation, of having a bunch of predatory, manipulative, and obtrusive post-launch monetization schemes crammed into them. It's got the likes of EA and Activision seeing massive dollar signs. And it's not good for the industry. There's only so many "live service" titles that the industry can reasonably support, yet too many companies want to shift resources away from traditional single-player titles just to try to cannibalize the market for these online-only social games.

Honestly, I'd argue that the only worthwhile things to come out of online are indies and the ability to patch titles after launch, though in regards to the latter most of the notable patches we've seen has dealt with online components of games, so even that one's questionable. I'd maybe also argue that expansions & DLC were a good thing that could breathe new life into older games, and is arguably better than what we had to deal with in the 90s with Street Fighter 2 and Mortal Kombat 3 (roster expansions meant buying the whole game all over again), but then again DLC mutated from something benign into the microtransaction/loot box filled miasma that permeates AAA gaming these days, so maybe we'd have been better off if DLC never existed to begin with.

We as an industry shouldnt be blaming a genre or platform over pubishers and developers trying to exploit it.

If it wasnt for an always online game like WoW i  probably wouldn't still be gaming today. The genre has done nothing wrong and i am all for online gaming. I am however placing the blame on the ones that deserve it, for giving always online a bad name.



Any game that has always online, or "half the game as planned DLC" gets a hard pass from me. Honestly, I have to thank to certain devs for making it easier and easier to just skip their games without worry.