Well, they can patch out the DRM check, probably, but if the game requires any kind of online functionality then it is guaranteed to lose some or all of its features. This is reality. Do you think you'll be able to play Killzone and Uncharted online ten years from now? Games are going to become more and more reliant on online features.
XBox One, PS4, DRM, and You
- Thread starter mrcorbo
- Start date
- Status
Well, they can patch out the DRM check, probably, but if the game requires any kind of online functionality then it is guaranteed to lose some or all of its features. This is reality. Do you think you'll be able to play Killzone and Uncharted online ten years from now? Games are going to become more and more reliant on online features.
Look back a bit longer and we find much longer downtimes.
http://majornelson.com/2009/06/16/reminder-xbox-live-maintenance-on-tuesday/
And it doesn't help if it's "only", say, 4 hours. Somebody that "just connected" won't be able to play within these 4 hours.
Nobody's complaining about losing online features due to no connection.
Problem is losing the ability to even RUN the game due to no connection.
Yes there will be games that are reliant on online features, but at the same time there will always be games that simply don't give a crap about any internet connection.
The console can renew its games licenses at any given interval (say 12 hours) as long as it is connected. Yes, that means it is on even when it is off (like when it downloads DD purchases in the background).
Cheers
Like if my phone carrier had a network outage because of weather, network attack, natural disaster or some other reason and I couldn't use my phone? It would suck, but I wouldn't be mad about it. The Internet is not bulletproof. Probably never will be.
That was planned downtime. If they were going to have that kind of planned downtime, they'd probably issue 48 hours leases for the games prior to the maintenance.
Also: Four years ago.
Cheers
I'm fully aware that not all classics, however you choose to define the term, will not be remade. Some will. Seems to be a popular thing to do right now.
As for the 2600, it is probably more reliable than a lot of modern electronics. It won't last forever.
But the day it stops working and no other 2600's are available for sale(typing atari 2600 into ebay.co.uk produced over 2,500 results) is not in the hands of a company that absolutely will shut down
the servers the moment they believe it to be cost effective and the bad pr is small enough.
if the 2600 had to be authenticated every 24 hours by atari (if it was technically posssible) do you think it would still work today...
So, this is all about the percentage of games that have absolutely no online connection. Losing access to some online features, or an entire online game is different and acceptable, somehow? It's not a matter of principle it's ... I have no idea what this is. Offline games need to be preserved forever, but online games don't?
You guys do know what hardware manufacturer discontinued means, right? Electronics don't have lifetime support, which means they will eventually die and will not be repairable or replaceable? Online services will have a markedly shorter existence. At some point PSN and Live will deprecate old features, maybe even old user login systems, which means you lose all online functionality. Old game servers can't be sustained forever. That's just reality.
Complaining about DRM in terms of preserving the history of games, or being able to play a game 10-15 years after it's release, is just not a realistic way of looking at games. In fact, regardless of whether the companies involved use DRM, this entire story will still be true. Game servers will be shut down. Online servers will be shutdown. Only the percentage of games that are playable entirely offline will be fully playable, and that percentage is going to shrink every year.
Because the Internet didn't exist when it was made. There was no concept of an online connected game console. Sorry, but from here on more and more games will have online functionality and that functionality will not be maintained indefinitely.
People that don't have internet will not be buying the One. It won't even be able to complete OOBE without an internet connection. I suspect it will have "Requires a broadband internet connection" right on the box, under "Requires HDMI capable TV or receiver"
I had no idea internet was made so that our purchases will lose their functionality and we should be happy about it
exactly, and that is why the idea of online authentication is bad....
So what you're saying is no one should make any games that have online features, or any kind of connectivity, because in the distant future it will not work anymore? Until someone can design data centers with unlimited storage, processing capacity and support staff, the industry should just not use any features that rely online, because it cannot be supported forever?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't think so. Sony committed that single player games would be playable offline. Which almost certainly means they've put this requirement into the Technical Requirements Checklist. They've been dealing with developers and publishers for years and know the tricks by now.
I am worried about discs, not DD. I don't consider DD games sustainable like i do discs. If the system isn't built to run without activation servers it's a major issue. All they have to do is tell me they will patch in with the last firmware and i will get of their killing culture case
Agreed. I think a lot of people's fears would be allayed if platform providers simply explained and committed to a consumer friendly EOL for their consoles.
Take Bungie's Destiny. How long do you think it would be playable after the release of the final chapter in the series, assuming it had absolutely zero DRM? Five years? Sure, maybe. Ten years? Very not likely. Fifteen years? Lol.
What you're complaining about has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. It's the nature of games that rely on Internet connectivity. So are we arguing that developers should stop making online games, or are those games not owned the same way as offline games, or not worth preserving?
1st off a console that requires online does not need data centers with unlimited storage, processing capacity and support staff,
or you are saying the xbone requires online therefore (by your definition) microsoft must have data centers with unlimited storage, processing capacity and support staff,
second we are saying that yes if your company chooses to make its products dependent on it running servers it should
a) run them indefinitely
b) if you not prepared to run them indefinitely dont make it a requirement
c) if you do shutdown the servers release a fix so server dependance is no longer required.
if i sell a product that requires me to stand on my head for it to work I should be prepared to stand on my head, If i dont want to stand on my head i wont make it a requirement
ps: to answer your later post
"What you're complaining about has absolutely nothing to do with DRM"
- the console having to connect to ms servers once a day is not for drm ? whats it for then ?
"So are we arguing that developers should stop making online games,"
-no, but if they choose to make the game in such a way as they need to run a server for it then they should run a server
If they dont like having to run a server all the time dont make it a requirement. Let end users run servers.
I can still play descent online even though the publisher and the dev dont exist.
microsft Allegiance required microsoft to run a server when they were no longer prepared to fund running a server they released the server program so people could still play
ps: i have no knowledge of bungie's destiny
or you are saying the xbone requires online therefore (by your definition) microsoft must have data centers with unlimited storage, processing capacity and support staff,
second we are saying that yes if your company chooses to make its products dependent on it running servers it should
a) run them indefinitely
b) if you not prepared to run them indefinitely dont make it a requirement
c) if you do shutdown the servers release a fix so server dependance is no longer required.
if i sell a product that requires me to stand on my head for it to work I should be prepared to stand on my head, If i dont want to stand on my head i wont make it a requirement
ps: to answer your later post
"What you're complaining about has absolutely nothing to do with DRM"
- the console having to connect to ms servers once a day is not for drm ? whats it for then ?
"So are we arguing that developers should stop making online games,"
-no, but if they choose to make the game in such a way as they need to run a server for it then they should run a server
If they dont like having to run a server all the time dont make it a requirement. Let end users run servers.
I can still play descent online even though the publisher and the dev dont exist.
microsft Allegiance required microsoft to run a server when they were no longer prepared to fund running a server they released the server program so people could still play
ps: i have no knowledge of bungie's destiny
Problem with that is that if pubs stop the used game market on the XB1 then they would surely do so on the PS4.
Sony has yet to say that used game sales can not encumbered by them or pubs.
Furthermore, if ubi and EA are willing to roll their own form of online DRM on PCs then they will probably be easily motivated to do so on the PS4.
- Status
