I should be able to host my own WoW server on my LAN, play CoD split-screen on my TV, or run my own Battlefield tournament on my own LAN.
Using the internet as an option for multiplayer or other optional features of games is fine, but there is absolutely no reason why a video game should ever require an internet connection.
People deciding that it is somehow acceptable to require an internet connection to play a game is a big part of the reason why we have DLC, buggy releases, microtransaction riddled games, and shitty, invasive DRM.
If you have ever been involved in the creation of games that require an internet connection then I hope your asshole itches until the day you die.
Edit: if the game is only available through digital distribution then an internet connection is a requirement to play the game because you have to be able to obtain the game to play it.
Back in the day releasing a buggy game was costly because it meant you would have provide the option to your users to receive updates by mail or in stores. DLC (or expansion packs) would have to be meaningful, because it would mean having to press new discs or make new cartridges in order to provide that content to your users and it wasn’t worthwhile for the users to buy if it wasn’t substantial. Loot boxes and other microtransactions wouldn’t really be a thing because you would have no guarantee that anyone would be willing to buy them because they would have to be provided by mail or in stores on some sort of physical media.
DRM would consist of needing to have a disc in the drive and maybe having to verify that you had a unique activation key by verifying a cryptographic hash against a public key on the disc.
All of this made for better games because the games had to be worth the hassle of going to the store to buy them or waiting for them to be delivered in the mail.
I should be able to host my own WoW server on my LAN, play CoD split-screen on my TV, or run my own Battlefield tournament on my own LAN.
I agree with this. I also agree a single player only experience has no business requiring an online connection.
I emphatically disagree that is the root of why modern gaming sucks. Especially since we had a long period where we did have the ability to do the afore-quoted stuff.
The number one reason why we no longer can host our own servers for multiplayer games is because if you controlled the servers, you could theoretically also control the extra content that is in the game files, but locked behind paying real dollars for. The server software being included with the game died with lootboxes and the F2P model.
I consider lootboxes and the F2P model to be a big part of what is wrong with modern gaming and I don’t think they’d be a thing or at the very least wouldn’t be anywhere near as prevalent if online functionality were required to be strictly optional.
Also, if a game publisher doesn’t want you to have access to certain content then they shouldn’t include it in the game files.
Put pre-ordering games too.
Gamers are one of the dumbest group of people. I play games too but fanboying over company like their corpo overload cant do no wrong is by far the stupidest thing people can do.
Time and time again, steam, sony, nintendo, xbox has shit their beds and people are willingly to slurp it all. Sony? Jacking up price for no reason, mandatory ps account for ps game on steam, removing purchase movie from ps store. Xbox? FULL FUCKING SCREEN ADS. Nintendo? $90 for a game, suing emulator dev. Steam? Paid mods, csgo gambling.
These mega corpo fuckers wont know until gamers vote with their wallet and i know for sure people wont. FOMO is real.
I don’t disagree with any of that. Except for the whole “vote with your wallet” thing. It’s pretty well proven that consumer level boycotts don’t work. Definitely do what you need to do to stick to your ethics and principals, I certainly will, but don’t expect to change anything.
If you want things to actually change, vote with your vote, because the only way to get things to change at a megacorp is through legislation and regulation. Although, at least in my country (the USA) even that seems to be essentially meaningless. I’ll still continue to do it for as long as I’m able, but holy shit our election system is broken.
Consumer level boycotts are helping crash the US economy right now. Ask yourself, who would benefit from you believing they don’t work?
Extreme tariffs are crashing the US economy right now by making it unprofitable for a lot of businesses to do business within that economy. It’s not a boycott if you can’t afford the product or if you can’t even buy the product because the company refuses to sell to you because they don’t think you’d be willing to pay the price they are now required to charge just to make a profit.
Boycotts from international consumers are hurting us companies, to the point where California’s governor implored tourists to come back.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/airline-stocks-hotels-us-tourist-boycott-9bc8fb69
Edit: if the game is only available through digital distribution then an internet connection is a requirement to play the game because you have to be able to obtain the game to play it.
If the internet connection isn’t required after downloading, I don’t see the issue. Nobody wants go back to CDs (or what ever games come on these days).
I absolutely want to go back to physical media. Preferably some sort of non-proprietary medium, like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, or a USB connected flash storage device.
Blu-Ray is very proprietary and DVD-Video requires licensing. Some games also have on disc DRM which imo is still akin to making it a proprietary medium.
You can own software without needing to use dated distribution methods. Look at GOG. You can download and keep your games in any way you want forever. And you don’t have to deal with annoying formats or media that’s hard to back up.
Blu-ray is proprietary in the sense that companies have to pay a licensing fee to put the blu-ray stamp on their disc and officially claim to be a blu-ray, but is otherwise an open standard. DVD and CD are both the same way.
As for on-disc DRM, as long as it never touches the network, it doesn’t bother me that much. It’s still less than ideal, but it’s less of a problem when compared to online DRM.
As for GoG, I applaud their stance towards providing DRM free games, however they are still a digital distribution platform, and suggesting them as an alternative to physical media misses the point of the original post as an internet connection is still required to obtain the game.
It also ignores platforms other than PC.