This has been eating at me for a while… about single player gaming experience becoming more and more intertwined with the multiplayer gaming experience. Personally, I don’t play multiplayer gaming sessions, stories, battles or any online games in general. I have nothing against those who enjoy online gaming, but don’t penalize me, because I don’t.
My first area of concern is that additional single player content is being solely transformed into online or multiplayer content. I’m going to avoid naming games, but if you’re a big gamer, then you already know which publishers and developers have (are) doing this. I shouldn’t have to go online and grind another 4-6 hours or more, on receiving the “real ending” or additional single player content locked behind multiplayer online content. And let’s be honest, most of the online play is geared towards publishers and developers capitalizing ($$$) on additional in-game content purchases. I’m not against publishers and developers making additional revenue, however, I’m against having to wait and install (using additional hard drive space) useless multiplayer content that I’m not interested in. Which of course, is usually tied behind some required game fixes and performance patches. Why can’t game publishers and developers just allow gamers the option of installing multiplayer online content? I mean, just allow those gamers the option of saying yes or no. If not, then provide the general game fixes & patches outside of the multiplayer content.
The second area of concern is [all] the required online license or DRM checks required by games. I’m all for the “first time” authentication of games, however, I’m against the regular or daily check-ins, that’s required for starting a particular game. If I purchase a game and met the original requirements on obtaining the license, I shouldn’t have to routinely check-in for another. And adding insult to injury, certain games when going offline “through their own GUI or storefronts,” can render part of the game content unavailable – even though it’s tied to single player! I’m all for game publishers and developers protecting their IPs, but don’t treat actual game holders, as if you’re monitoring a child’s behavior. If Microsoft got tons sh** on possibly requiring ‘always-online’ with the Xbox One… shouldn’t game publishers and developers get the same sh** as well?
Lastly, I believe gamers, more specifically PC gamers, are getting shafted more and more on how they play (i.e., mods, gfx enhancements, trainers, etc…). I’m not condoning gamers use enhanced mods or trainers within online gaming or multiplayer sessions. Not at all, that’s cheating. However, I’m not for the heavy handed tactics (banning or disabling the game altogether) used to penalize gamers whom use game enhancements in offline gaming or single player content based games. If what game publishers and developers are saying is true; “that enhancements are destroying online gaming.” Why not, as I suggested before, separate both? Or give the option of disabling the online portion during the original game install process. For those who chose online gaming… then yes, by all means, keep the enhancements out. But for those gamers who opted-out the online gaming or multiplayer content, then there should be no need for these tactics.
Thoughts?
My first area of concern is that additional single player content is being solely transformed into online or multiplayer content. I’m going to avoid naming games, but if you’re a big gamer, then you already know which publishers and developers have (are) doing this. I shouldn’t have to go online and grind another 4-6 hours or more, on receiving the “real ending” or additional single player content locked behind multiplayer online content. And let’s be honest, most of the online play is geared towards publishers and developers capitalizing ($$$) on additional in-game content purchases. I’m not against publishers and developers making additional revenue, however, I’m against having to wait and install (using additional hard drive space) useless multiplayer content that I’m not interested in. Which of course, is usually tied behind some required game fixes and performance patches. Why can’t game publishers and developers just allow gamers the option of installing multiplayer online content? I mean, just allow those gamers the option of saying yes or no. If not, then provide the general game fixes & patches outside of the multiplayer content.
The second area of concern is [all] the required online license or DRM checks required by games. I’m all for the “first time” authentication of games, however, I’m against the regular or daily check-ins, that’s required for starting a particular game. If I purchase a game and met the original requirements on obtaining the license, I shouldn’t have to routinely check-in for another. And adding insult to injury, certain games when going offline “through their own GUI or storefronts,” can render part of the game content unavailable – even though it’s tied to single player! I’m all for game publishers and developers protecting their IPs, but don’t treat actual game holders, as if you’re monitoring a child’s behavior. If Microsoft got tons sh** on possibly requiring ‘always-online’ with the Xbox One… shouldn’t game publishers and developers get the same sh** as well?
Lastly, I believe gamers, more specifically PC gamers, are getting shafted more and more on how they play (i.e., mods, gfx enhancements, trainers, etc…). I’m not condoning gamers use enhanced mods or trainers within online gaming or multiplayer sessions. Not at all, that’s cheating. However, I’m not for the heavy handed tactics (banning or disabling the game altogether) used to penalize gamers whom use game enhancements in offline gaming or single player content based games. If what game publishers and developers are saying is true; “that enhancements are destroying online gaming.” Why not, as I suggested before, separate both? Or give the option of disabling the online portion during the original game install process. For those who chose online gaming… then yes, by all means, keep the enhancements out. But for those gamers who opted-out the online gaming or multiplayer content, then there should be no need for these tactics.
Thoughts?
I doubt most of their portfolio will make it to Steam as many Western markets would blow up if you released games featuring some of the genres they like to cater to.
