EA: All games are now to be streamed.

Aeoniss

Regular
Electronic Arts’ policy of requiring its users to always be online when playing their games is going to continue but with a twist, confirmed Keith Ramsdale, the general manager of EA Northern Europe.

This new version of the always online requirement will feature the implementation of “online universes,” where the games players purchase will exist on the servers rather than on one’s computer.



Ramsdale explained the new vision for EA’s always online policy.

Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work. On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

Here’s the thing: when he gets home to play again on his 360 that evening, all those achievements and upgrades will be alive in his game. We’re very focused on transforming all of our brands into these online universes. That gives the consumer full control of how and when they play in a rich world of content.

The new policy will be extended to all of EA’s franchises, including FIFA, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, The Sims, Need for Speed, and Star Wars games, among others.

Ramsdale did not give a timeframe for this policy change.

Analysis: Gaming’s a big business now, and that means that the stakes of piracy are much higher. For example, Crysis 2, last year’s most pirated game, reported an estimated 3,920,000 pirated copies, resulting in approximately $235,200,000 of lost income. Of course, it’s difficult to aggregate what percentage of pirates are actual lost customers, but when you’re losing $235 million dollars on a game from piracy, it doesn’t really matter anymore. The fact of the matter is that, even if only 10% of pirates were actual lost customers, then you’re still losing a painful $23 million due to piracy.

Crysis 2 wasn’t an anomaly, either. In 2011, games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, FIFA 12, and Portal 2 all recorded estimate piracy levels of over 3 million copies, and it’s important to note that three of those games are titles that EA published.

So I think the message here is clear. Piracy is a real, veritable concern to any publisher releasing high-profile AAA games for the PC. Therefore, EA has a right and a business duty to be worried about piracy and to try and think of ways to fix this issue.

Now, before you all get your pitchforks and torches and storm my house saying that I’m pro-DRM, let me state for the record that I think, unequivocally, that EA’s always online policy is draconian, misguided, and repulsive. It’s a prime example of taking the wrong route of DRM; it’s punishing all of their players because of pirates rather than rewarding the paying customers for their patronage. It’s bad; it doesn’t work; it frustrates real customers; and I think that, ironically, it’s contributing to the piracy of their games rather than helping to correct the issue.

As such, when I hear of this new development in EA’s DRM policy, I can’t help but feel that this is one step forward and two steps back. On the one hand, EA is actually trying to ease the pain of the always online requirement by adding helpful and customer-positive features to it such as cross-platforming and cloud saving. However, in the process of doing this, EA not only misses the point again on why their DRM sucks, they also go in yet another completely misguided direction by taking away even more game ownership from customers. With this new policy, EA is not only continuing but expanding their practice of making customers jump through hoop after hoop to gain the content they paid for, and those who do brave the obstacles are being rewarded with less actual ownership of that content. You know what that means: customers are going to grow tired and frustrated with the draconian DRM and look to piracy to try and circumvent all the hassle. It’s a vicious cycle, isn’t it?

The fact of the matter is that you don’t “beat piracy,” and if that’s how you approach the issue, then you’re just going to frustrate everybody and get nowhere. What you really need to do is encourage people to be legitimate customers rather than pirates, and EA’s new policy most certainly does not attempt this in any shape or form.

Ultimately, I’m disheartened to hear this news. If EA keeps up the pace with their attempts to bludgeon users into buying and using the game exactly how the company wants, then I think their future with the PC market might be pretty bleak.


http://www.gamingbus.com/2012/04/23/ea-announces-expansion-online-drm-policy/


Just.. .Wow. Well, if I'm reading this right then we can expect piracy to take a huge upswing against EA games as people get fed up. Honestly I'm not sure if I believe that piracy is the sole motivator for doing this..
 
Heh...

The fact of the matter is that you don’t “beat piracy,”

MMO's have beaten piracy. And while Guild Wars was eventually made piratable, it came so long after the launch of the game that I don't know anyone that actually plays a pirated copy of it.

I think that's why Blizzard, and apparently now EA are going with the MMO method of client/server gameplay. Although EA could be trying something different, it does sound like this is the direction they are planning to go. Are the "scene" groups going to bother creating a server from scratch each time a new game is released? And how long will that take if they also have to recreate the AI, combat resolution calculations, etc.?

That doesn't mean it won't be an inconvenience for some. The same places you can't play an MMO will be the same places you won't be able to play their games in the future.

But if anything, smartphones just makes all publishers think that virtually everyone will be online sometime.

Regards,
SB
 
I think this is changing how games are designed. Obviously, just making an arbitrary server connection to make sure the game is not pirated is not going to work (e.g. the Ubisoft way). The publishers know that, they are not stupid. So eventually they will demand game developers to make games "online" in some way. Eventually single player games will be very rare.
 
What exactly is this about? The quote in the original post doesn't actually say. Does it mean you don't install the game locally, but rather stream down every level each time you play a game, or will it mean all gameplay runs on a remote server, even in a single-playe campaign mission-based game?

Either way, it'll mean a heck of a lot of hassle for their honest customers. Then again, pissing on their own customers is something EA has a lot of practice at. Aren't they losing money every quarter? EA simply can't roll over and die fast enough!
 
I would bring in a law that states "if a game requires a publisher to run a server that server must run indefinitely"
Like how care plans are protected
If Currys, Currys Digital, PC World, Black or Dixons Travel ceased trading, would my product still be protected?

Yes. Our promise is to protect our customers’ product support agreements. There is an independently managed trust fund to meet all our obligations to our customers who have purchased a term agreement.
 
This sounds like people are misrepresenting the original message somewhat. What I'm reading here is something that is like Motorstorm RC on PS3 and Vita. You can play the same game on either platform and while there may be some differences in what you can do (e.g. PS3 version has four player split-screen), all your progress will be stored 'in the cloud'.

For Motorstorm RC, this simply means that all the medals, cars and trophies you unlock, all your times, all your car customisations, everything is stored both locally and in the cloud, and the game syncs up (asynchronously, thank god) every time you play the game on either platform. Even trophies that you achieved in the Vita unlock trophies on the PS3.

This is the best and most full implementation I currently know of (pretty much 100% of gamestate in the Cloud synched to and from two different platforms), but there are others too: MLB for instance has an option to save the basic career mode into the cloud on PS3, and then download and continue on Vita and vice versa.

There are various experiments with this setup left and right going on as we speak, and in general I applaud this very much, and think it is a logical move for EA. People were already complaining that FIFA for Vita didn't connect to the PS3 game, but it was announced that the next version will have this feature. EA are taking that to the next logical step and make it universal for all their big titles.

Of course there are definitely ways for them to screw this up, or make it user unfriendly (Vita and PS3 Motorstorm work fine when they are not connected to the web, and just synch again at the next opportunity). But there is nothing wrong with it in principle, and this looks like the internet making a fool of itself again. ;)
 
I think having games merely asynchronously saving the users progress on a remote server goes agains't their main basic intention of requiring users the be always online when playing their games. Unless Keith Ramsdale was confirming something else.
 
Soundsl like :
Buy 4 times the same game on different platform and uniformly unlock things.
(ie unlock in one, got it unlocked in all, it IS the same game after all... [and you bought it 4 times ;p])
(ie We'll remove anything that goes against your purchase of our product on many platforms.)

Of course one might prefer the Valve approach of buy once and play on Windows or Mac...
 
I think having games merely asynchronously saving the users progress on a remote server goes agains't their main basic intention of requiring users the be always online when playing their games. Unless Keith Ramsdale was confirming something else.

The quoted post reports on this newsitem:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-20-ea-turning-all-of-its-brands-into-online-universes

but adds the stuff about always online itself. If it is true that you currently can only play EA games if you are online, then nothing has changed, and this is not relevant to this news. If it is false, then there is nothing in this piece of news that says this policy is changing.

There's a Mass Effect 3 example in there, with the cross-play with the iOS thingy ... can you only play ME3 if you are connected to EA?
 
Ergh, the possible pool of games to purchase is gradually becoming smaller and smaller.
 
And btw what's with the title? I was expecting some exciting new technology similar to what we discussed earlier where all games are now streamed to the HDD 'while you play' similar to MMO stuff, but this is just 'store all user-data / progress in the cloud' (which is also cool).

Are people really this stupid, even here, or am I missing something? Is this because of all the 'attention' EA has gotten during the most hated US company, or what?
 
...so no gaming on international flights or anywhere I don't have internet?

Guess BF3 may have been my last EA purchase...
 
Now you're just teasing me right? ;)

Here's how it's reported on Eurogamer:

Eurogamer said:
EA is turning all of its brands into what it calls "online universes".
At EA's UK showcase this week, EA's Northern Europe boss Keith Ramsdale said all of EA's game franchises, including FIFA, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Star Wars, The Sims and Need for Speed, were being transformed in this way.

This means more than simple online play, Ramsdale explained. It involves being able to play a "brand" across multiple devices, each one contributing to a singular goal - and profile.
Ramsdale used FIFA by way of an example. "Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work," he said. "On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

"Here's the thing: when he gets home to play again on his 360 that evening, all those achievements and upgrades will be alive in his game."

Ramsdale said online universes allow the consumer to play "how he wants, when he wants and on the device he wants".

"We're very focused on transforming all of our brands into these online universes. That gives the consumer full control of how and when they play in a rich world of content."

We've already seen some of this with the BioWare developed Mass Effect 3. Players are able to contribute to their Galactic Readiness in the main game by playing the Mass Effect Datapad companion app on their smartphones.

I'm sure all of you already didn't play Mass Effect 3 because of EA's horrible policies ...
 
Now you're just teasing me right? ;)

Here's how it's reported on Eurogamer:



I'm sure all of you already didn't play Mass Effect 3 because of EA's horrible policies ...

I'm waiting for it to show up on Steam.
 
I'm sure all of you already didn't play Mass Effect 3 because of EA's horrible policies ...
What horrible policies? That they turn studios to shit or that they turn off turn off multiplayer servers for games I don't care about doesn't really bother me enough to not buy a game ... ME3 can be played offline so I bought it ... I don't buy online only games (excepting multiplayer only titles).

The original author was a fucking troll BTW. Making the standard strong online only DRM pitch for publishers (piracy loses them money) without making the strong opposing pitch (people not buying their games if they are online only will lose them money) shows his bias even if he denies it. Online only shrinks the market, maybe swaying some pirates will give a net benefit ... maybe not ... what would be much better all around though is a hardware DRM solution for the PC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The quoted post reports on this newsitem:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-20-ea-turning-all-of-its-brands-into-online-universes

but adds the stuff about always online itself. If it is true that you currently can only play EA games if you are online, then nothing has changed, and this is not relevant to this news. If it is false, then there is nothing in this piece of news that says this policy is changing.

Yes for legitimate purchasers of EA games nothing really changes if the game doesn't already offer an offline mode.

The mechanism is changing, however. Currently with single player EA games (like Crysis) the online requirement is mostly there just to verify ownership and not much else.

In the future, some amount of in game assets will be required to stream from the servers. In other words they won't be stored on your computer. Hence making it more difficult for people to release the game to the masses for free as you then have to recreate the host server.

If all the host server contains is data, then it will be relatively easy (see Assassin's Creed 2). If it hosts more complex items like unit AI for example (like an MMO), then it starts to get progressively harder for a scene group to potentially release a playable copy of the game.

Regards,
SB
 
Back
Top