Of course, to use the multiplayer feature, I would expect Origin to be
required. This is the reality of gaming today because piracy is so
rampant on the PC platform, you can expect devs and publishers to resort
to such measures..
And honestly, I can't say I blame them.
Honestly I can. TW2 is a commercial success, added an online aspect to a previously single player RPG, was released in the current market, has a contiguous storyline with the prior title in the series and doesn't use DRM for any of its component multi or single player (unless you buy the game through Steam/GoG, but that's an *option* that an end user can *choose* not something that's required ... either A) in the sense that it was required to make the game or to make it a financial success (only 20% of sales game from the DRM containing digital downloads) or
in the sense that any such software or platform is required for those features to work.
So, perhaps you don't blame them, that's personal perspective so of course you're entitled too it. However any contention that such measures are "required" or "simply a fact of contemporary gaming" et al is demonstrably inaccurate.
What is becoming increasingly evident in gaming today is that gamers don't much like being interfered with to the point that it detracts from the fun of the game. Consider the backlash that Ubi has faced, consider the number of people who don't buy games that are Steam only (you don't hear people talking about that on the forums of games that are Steam only... how strange
) or to be much more directly on topic consider the Amazon reviews of BF3. I can't read German so I'm not even talking about those (tho one star speaks across the language barrier) I'm talking about the US reviews where even positive 4 star reviews of the game are critical or Origin and where the overwhelming majority (when I read them at least) of the 1 star reviews all specifically sight Origin by name as a part of the problem (in several cases the whole problem). Furthermore these reviews generally don't even bring up the data security issue(s) they're talking in the main functional "can I play the game/does this provide any value to me" perspective and the client is
still frequently being referred to as a deal breaker.
Simply put anyone who supports adding "features" to a product that do not enhance end user value, and tries to sell it as 'a requirement of doing business' needs better market research.
Legion
ps ~ folks if you want more information from the horses mouth go read those BF3 reviews and you can get a wealth of feedback regarding what it's like to have Origin be a requirement for game use.
EDIT: I have a suggestion for anyone who's been following this thread (or indeed for any gamer generally), let's make "who published it?" our new first question regarding any game. Supporting a company in the current market is often not just about supporting a dev studio so looking at the whole picture makes sense and if the publisher of a game isn't someone who's business practices and/or customer support is something you want to support then why should you? For myself I will be asking "who published it?" of any new game that is recommended to me or that catches my eye, and I will be providing the information 'who published it' along with every game recommendation I make going forward. People deserve to know what they're paying for before they spend their hard earned money (even more so in the current global economic climate) and that means the whole experience that they're spending their money on, not just the most sought after aspect of it (formerly just known as "the game" or "the product" and once upon a time not treated as a mere aspect of the service being purchased).
2nd EDIT:
anzolino wrote...
FYI: Long time gamers even remember the times when the game was delivered on floppy disks and they have to search word 57 on page 34 of the manual.
For example al-qadim the genie's curse!
(anzolino you rock
)
And there were indeed games made without any form of copy protect on them. (as a note there are still games made and sold this way, in fact I've purchased multiple copies of several of them as gifts etc. because I liked the game. So while they have no copy protect or DRM
at all so
anyone who can click a download link in a web browser can pirate them there are thousands of people buying them anyway and they don't even have millions spent in marketing to support them
).
"Why would there be DRM if not as a response to piracy?" why because of the documentable sales numbers in the second hand market? Or in the case of the more sweeping instances because marketing firms will pay big bucks for user data (even anonymous aggregate data, tho more if it's not). Both of those are profit driven reasons for it without even entering into the 'in house market research' aspects of it or the 'sales retention business models' that attempt to inspire brand loyalty by 'creating a community' to game in. The idea that demand for single player games is 'a thing of the past' isn't accurate and yet more and more main stream games are being fused with multi-player. It's a clever tactic to hook people who play games a social activity, and that's fine but there's no reason why I should be required to participate or why I should have to pay a cost (regardless of the form) for their marketing.
Realistically tho, piracy isn't the point of this thread, just like Steam isn't, just like "is multi-player valid for an RPG" isn't, just like "if you're not a criminal you don't have to care about privacy" isn't, ad nausea um
the point to return to it is that we're paying customers who'd like to remain so but who deserve and are asking for the choice in how we purchase the service, or at the least the basic courtesy of being told we won't be given that option so we can let it go and just buy something else that better suits our needs.
There is nothing unreasonable in the slightest about these desires and it does a business no credit to stonewall it's paying customers.
Modifié par RoseLegion, 28 novembre 2011 - 02:43 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
