id Software on always-on internet debate

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 10 August, 2011

Persistent connection "better for everyone".

Famed first-person shooter developer id Software would love to force gamers to connect to the internet while playing its games.

It would be "better for everybody", creative director Tim Willits told Eurogamer at QuakeCon last week.

Blizzard sparked an outpouring of anger when it announced that upcoming PC game Diablo 3 will not be playable offline.

For Willits, who is applying the finishing touches to shooter Rage before its October launch, Blizzard's decision marks an important step in the evolution of the perception of always connected gaming.

"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," he said. "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."

Explaining his view, Willits said always being online would enable developers to improve games without intruding on the gamer.

"In the end, it's better for everybody," he said. "Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there. But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo 3] to make change.

"I'm a big proponent of always connected. I'm always connected. Our fans are always connected.

"There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game. But it'll change."

Ubisoft, whose controversial DRM strategy demands a persistent online connection for many of its PC titles, has also drawn criticism.

Last month Ubisoft said its strategy had resulted in "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection, and from that point of view the requirement is a success".

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (96) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Broken_Hands #1 10 months ago

    It's not better for those of us who's internet connection is as choppy as Freddy Kruegers hands.

  • Koozer #2 10 months ago

    "Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there."

    Has he heard of Steam? It manages the miracle of offering automatic updates AND an offline mode! Just imagine!

  • uknortherner2000 #3 10 months ago

    Imagine a game that worked out of the bloody box. Nah, there's more chance of seeing unicorns farting rainbows.

  • Jabadabadoo #4 10 months ago

    Up yours internetz with your entitlement bullshit.
    All publishers should do this, get it the hell over with, so we can all move on with our lives.
    here you go [link url=http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/8/8/
    ]http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/8...[/link]
    Quit your bitching internetz and get with the program

  • geeza2020 #5 10 months ago

    /yawn

    When are American publishers going to realise that, in the UK at least, we dont live in some magical fairy land where the internet never goes down?
    Edited by geeza2020 at 10/08/11 @ 15:01

  • EmiliasHorse #6 10 months ago

    I agree 100% with his views.

  • gribb #7 10 months ago

    Try being a Virgin Media customer in London and then tell me online all the time DRm is a great idea...

  • gribb #8 10 months ago

    Try being a Virgin Media customer in London and then tell me online all the time DRm is a great idea...

  • Butr0sButr0s #9 10 months ago

    "It would be 'better for everybody' "-
    I agree, now... can you provide me with an always on internet connection, free of charge, without any outages?

    "I'm a big proponent of always connected"
    True

    " I'm always connected."
    True

    "Our fans are always connected."
    False

    How can he possibly know the internet availability of every fan? My brother and parents live in a neighborhood 30 minutes from Baltimore city and have NO highspeed internet available, no cable, no DSL, no fiber optic. Just this year they were finally able to get a 3g adapter, but gaming on 3g would be really rough considering the bandwidth limitations, latency, and the fact that 3g in their area is spotty making an "always on" connection impossible.

  • rudedudejude #10 10 months ago

    Hmmm... I don't agree with always on just because gaming sessions would be so choppy at times.

    I don't have a problem with connection on boot up, but if connection drops it shouldn't kick you out of a single player game, that's a bit shit.

  • Bravestinsane #11 10 months ago

    piss off

    I live in a student house with 5 other people, i already struggle playing MP games at certain times of day, if i have to be online 100% of the time i wouldnt be able to play single player, that is a joke.

    PISS OFF

  • aids #12 10 months ago

    Whether or not we have persistent internet connection is beside the point.
    I bought the game, shouldn't I be allowed to play it the way I want?

    What if I wanted to play whilst travelling?
    Would it be acceptable if Microsoft made Office require internet to boot-up?
    And yet here publishers are dictating how we use the products we pay for and own.
    Edited by aids at 10/08/11 @ 15:10

  • Flipper79 #13 10 months ago

    I agree with the sentiment, but it's just not practical at the moment. Inevitably there will be someone who posts on here saying that any serious gamer will have a great connection and be hooked up direct to the modem. But for those of us that don't play *name preferred generic FPS here* for 16 hours a day it's not always practical or possible to do that. Losing connection and losing progress or even just having to log in to the game again is an annoyance that will seriously damage the enjoyment of any game no matter how well made.

  • bratmandu #14 10 months ago

    Suck it ID, try being a Virgin Media customer in Belfast and see what happens. Tell you what else - I reckon Rage will be a massive hyped up turd sandwich.

    Funny how you don't hear the devs of indie games and those with real innovation in their products going on about being always connected. It only ever seems to be the big guys crying piracy. Especially with franchises they know will sell buckets anyway.

  • marmaduke #15 10 months ago

    It's mostly a problem for when your router cuts out- particularly if you're on wi-fi.

  • persus-9 #16 10 months ago

    No thanks, I like to own games. I like to have games that don't change. One of the things that pisses me off about Steam is the fact they can update your games and never let you have the product you original bought back.

    Whether they are or not I treat games as art and it pisses me off when after I've bought their work the artist feels they have the right to break into my house and add a few more brush strokes. There haven't been many examples as yet but I can think of at least three: (1) Dangerous High School Girls in Trouble updated the art for their characters and in my opinion far worse. (2) Far more famously, Popcap removed a certain zombie from Plants vs Zombies because Micheal Jackson's estate was threatening to sue them. (3) Terraria fixed a "bug" a few weeks back which increased the enemy spawn rate and made the whole game far more combat orientated and less to my taste. I'd far rather they couldn't do this. I'd far rather I could keep my games just as they are if I like them the way they are and not have them automatically patched into something new that I don't like as much.

    It seems to me Tim Willits is promoting a view of games as fluid constantly updating and ultimately disposable things which I'm diametrically opposed to. Fine multiplayer games are like that because relying on other people makes them that way but when it comes to single player games I want to be able to go back in ten years time and play the exact same game I originally did if I choose to. Always online, constantly updating and ultimately entirely in the hands of the publishers is exactly what I don't want.
    Edited by persus-9 at 10/08/11 @ 15:11

  • Ares42 #17 10 months ago

    hmm, his proposed reason for why always-online is good makes absolutely no sense. There's no reason you can't have automatic hidden updates without requiring you to always be online. Hell, games like Uncharted 2 and Mortal Kombat has already implemented limited systems like that.
    Edited by Ares42 at 10/08/11 @ 15:20

  • Murton #18 10 months ago

    "There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game. But it'll change."

    Only if developers make it painless, and nobody is interested in doing that as the primary focus isn't to enable connected features but to initiate DRM based control over the product. Yes we're always online so it doesn't matter but what about when things go wrong? What if my wifi drops out for a second? I'll be kicked back to the main menu, but will your game auto-save if that happens? If not then the constant connection isn't good for everyone, in fact it's quite bad and absolutely inexcusable.

    And what if something more drastic happens like someone steals copper cable from the street so I lose my internet connection completely until it's replaced? no game. What if some rioting dicks burn out a telephone exchange? no game. What if your servers are targeted by DDOS attacks? no game. Think it through man, on one side always connected means you can offer some nice features, great, but on the other it means if bad things happen people can't play your game as a result of a poor design decision to use overly restrictive online-based DRM.

  • God_Octo #19 10 months ago

    I'd be totally buggered if that was the case- my internet is terrible. Its things like this that make me glad I don't play PC games. There has got to be a better way of doing DRM, hasn't there?

  • Spekingur #20 10 months ago

    Guild Wars provided updates 'on the fly' - meaning, you did not have to log out when there were updates. Heck, you can even start playing whilst it is still downloading (obviously you need to have downloaded the starting area).

    That was an MMO though. Still is.
    Edited by Spekingur at 10/08/11 @ 15:18

  • nimzy #21 10 months ago

    No one has an always-on connection. Hell, my broadband ISP dropped me three times last night alone. Thing is though, what most gamers don't realize is that companies have been making games that 'phone home' with statistical data for years now without anyone being the wiser.

    My biggest issue with always-on internet connection required DRM is that no one has 100% uptime. Not even the publisher, as Ubisoft has proven on repeated occasions. And what happens if the publisher decides you can no longer play their game? (If you will recall the infamous "banned on Bioware's forums, banned from the game I paid for" debacle.) I think of games as an investment of time and money. If someone told me that my games would eventually disappear because someone else decided it wasn't profitable to keep beaming "it's legitimate" signals to my computer, I'd have laughed in their face a few years ago. Now it's a sad reality. the publishers need to stop treating their customers like they are criminals and instead actually pursue the real ones. Hell, Blizzard's DRM is called Warden, for fuck's sake.

  • Paul_cz #22 10 months ago

    This is a clear case of Willits talking before thinking. What he says makes zero sense. There is ZERO benefit for gamer in "always online" requirement. All the benefits can be delivered as he wants, WHILE giving gamers to play while disconnected.

  • wombat987 #23 10 months ago

    @persus-9

    Just so you know, u can disable the automatic updates....

    I don't mind this so much, as i have a pretty good internet. but i do see why an offline mode needs to be in games.

    I mean Blizzard made SC2 online only, but u can still play single player stuff offline, u just dont get acheivments.

    This is the kind of system i can agree with.

  • mrlaurentisdead #24 10 months ago

    Would like to add my voice to the masses saying 'NO NO NO, welcome to the real world.'

    Updating games as and when you log in to an online server is fine. As an anti-piracy measure, always-on is too big a step. These simple truths leave always-on in the dust as a good solution.

    I would (baring technical issues - which is not a quick aside but an important point) not be inconvenienced by something on my 360 requiring it. However, gaming on my laptop (hello Diablo 3) is basically a gigantic disappointing hassle if I am required online at all times. It stops me from ever buying the game, mostly because I am too wooly to be one of these 'buy it legit then pirate it to get the experience I paid for' types. I don't want the hassle and I'd rather vote with my wallet and say 'no sale'.

  • mamac123 #25 10 months ago

    it if doesnt use steamworks im pirating it

  • dingo75 #26 10 months ago

    As a collector I'm absolutely against it.
    I want to fire up my games 15 years in the future when id might not exist anymore and their servers are long gone.
    If the game insists to connect to a server I will be screwed.

  • cyber_nicco #27 10 months ago

    I agree that the assumption of connectivity is erroneous. Even barring any of the unusual circumstances (copper thieves, etc) mentioned here, some of us game on our laptops in places that don't offer wi-fi. Do I now need to invest in 4G for my laptop just to play your games?

  • DavidSebb #28 10 months ago

    Im having issues with my internet connection for a whole month and a half now. They (My ISP) acknowledges the problem (i get massive pings and like 2% of the speed im paying for) and promises day by day to solve the issue and tell me that problem needs to resolved with assistance from another company and its them to blame for the slow response, further more, they released me from paying the internet bill untill the problem is resolved. So there you go Tim Willits ! with ur bloody 'always-on' DRM id be screwed right now u douche.

  • berelain #29 10 months ago

    I agree that it would be a lot better for most games- cloud saves, always connected to friends lists, no piracy, etc etc. The problem is that the current infrastructure isn't built for it- and that's both client-side and server-side. Users often have to put up with patchy and sporadic internet connections (don't get me started on the travesty that is Sky Broadband Connect), and that's certainly a problem. But a bigger problem is the inability of the hosts to provide and always-on service. I don't want to be told I can't play Diablo 3 / Rage / etc single-player one evening just because Blizzard / id / whoever are doing maintenance work, or because their servers are having difficulties.

    I like the idea of an always-on internet connection... but its just not that viable yet.

  • FortysixterUK #30 10 months ago

    With an Xbox game, you can log in offline with your profile and play the game.
    Why can't you do this with your PC game?
    Truly, if all the big boys are going this way with their triple A titles, I can see a lot less sales for them and a lot more hacked copies being used by PC gamers who feel vindicated in their use of hacked titles.

    If you buy a game then you own it. You have paid for the right to play it single player and have the game save on your PC.

  • Segnit #31 10 months ago

    I will never accept for single player offline-only games to require persistant internet connection.

    It's very simple.

  • Eldritch #32 10 months ago

    "There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game. But it'll change."

    I'm one of the "few" then, and, no, that won't change, thank you.

  • PearOfAnguish #33 10 months ago

    I have no doubt that Ubisoft has seen a reduction in piracy, but the important question is whether it has seen an increase in sales. Would anyone at EG like to ask this question?

    Although I'm sure they would blame poor sales figures on the platform rather than their shit DRM.

  • xandoodle #34 10 months ago

    "Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated."

    Or automatically broke. Optional or no buy.

  • bigjimbeef #35 10 months ago

    I'm in two minds about it really. I get why they're doing it, and I'm not completely against it in all its forms, but it does seem like a tough sell to convince people that they need to permanently have a net connection to play a single player game.

    I don't care much about it with Diablo 3, because I'll be playing online. But I tend to have certain games that I play when my net connection is down, or I just want to be offline for a bit. If I can't do that in a few years time, I'll probably be a bit fucked off. Nothing is more annoying than not being able to play a Steam game because you can't log in for some stupid reason.

    Seems simple enough: games where you need connection a server (D3/MMOs), always-on is ok; games that have fuck all to do with a net connection, always-on is going to piss people off.

  • dsmx #36 10 months ago

    Where do all these people in positions of power in the games industry gets this always on, prefect internet connections no matter where you are in the world be it on a plane, on a train or even in your own home?

  • Silvervein #37 10 months ago

    Many people already said it, but I feel that it has to be said again.
    This whole always on malarky is good only for publishers and internet providers, offering DRM for the first group and instant profits for the other.
    People buying those games will lose badly.
    I'm still playing ufo: enemy unknown and carmageddon. What would happen if those games required internet connection? I'd be unable to play games I paid for. So that basically amounts to devs breaking into my house and stealing my games. No thanks.

  • [TR] #38 10 months ago

    "I'm a big proponent of always connected. I'm always connected. Our fans are always connected."

    ..........................................

    Screw all those fans of yours that aren't always connected, am I right? They're not as big fans as the other ones. After all, they can't even pay for an always on internet connection to assert their fandom!

  • Toothball #39 10 months ago

    I agree with this guy. My internet isn't perfect, but it works well enough to see me online most of the time. Sometimes I do get disconnected, at which point I generally just reconnect and get back to it. Presumably I'm now going to be heavily negged for disagreeing with the angry mob though.

  • persus-9 #40 10 months ago

    @wombat987: True true but you can't revert or reinstall an old version which is what I'd really like to see and they don't always give you the option not to update. I guess because it was a legal issue with PvZ they actually removed the entire old game from Steam and replaced it with PvZ:GOTY edition and used that as a loophole to update it even though I'd turned off automatic updates on PvZ. I was not impressed.

  • Eldritch #41 10 months ago

    No, the angry mob is getting ready for some quality looting now...

  • somnolentsurfer #42 10 months ago

    How clueless are these people? It's not about resentment. It's about it simply not being "better for everyone". Some of us like to play games away from home. Personally I find it totally mystifying that people in the games industry don't seem to fall into that category.

  • RevanNL #43 10 months ago

    Imagine picking up a game and the servers are shit. You're fucked, the developer is fucked because it has the potential to drive people towards piracy, so in the end everyone is fucked

  • bikmate #44 10 months ago

    Bullshit, just tell the game to check for updates when it sees you are online. This doesn't need a constant internet connection.

  • TheTingler #45 10 months ago

    I love Tim, and I've heard a lot of people I otherwise respect coming out with this opinion, but this really is a case of "I have this, my friends have this, so everyone must have this". Americans always suffer from this condition worst, even when it's towards other Americans - although a lot of the Eurogamer staff seem to be struck with it too sadly.

    Always-on internet doesn't exist. I know several close friends who are currently offline, or with a slow connection, and they can't do ANYTHING on PC right now. Moreover, I personally have suffered at the hands of Ubisoft's DRM, which people forget isn't just dependant on YOU being online - it's dependant on THEM being online stably too. Which is actually rarely the case considering how many times I've been booted out of co-op games or the entire game itself. I couldn't play Splinter Cell Conviction for 3 damn months. At all. Just because their online system didn't work.

    90% of the time I'm online. I want to know that during that 10% I'm not I can still play my favourite games to keep me occupied.

  • carrotcake #46 10 months ago

    I bought TDU2 on Steam.... my internet often drops and the game throws me back to the title screen without letting me finish the race I was doing because it wants always on internet. It is game breaking.

  • bad09 #47 10 months ago

    Well I guess Rage will be one to be wary of from the sounds of it. I honestly cannot fathom why this industry (an industry constantly crying it's arse of about people downloading drm free versions for free) actually wants games crippled for legitmate gamers I just don't understand the thinking.

    Fuck off with this internet bullcrap do you people not realise you are MAKING pirates do you not see that people don't want it? Do you not see the legitmate gamers who say "meh I'll just download it instead" or "I'll wait for a crack, buy it and get rid of the crap".

    I know I'll never buy it EVER and if it does get worse (Ubi and Blizzard I can live without very easily) I will just join the eye patch crowd. No respect for me, no respect (or money) for you mr game industry simples.

  • Lord_BeeJee #48 10 months ago

    Ubisoft has seen a reduction in their piracy because even on download sites people dont want to touch their games anymore.

  • mousearmyone #49 10 months ago

    Server error while trying to look at this article. Sweet Irony.

  • xessive #50 10 months ago

    "If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome." -Tim Willits

    Any sentence that starts with forcing people to do something and ends with "and then have that be acceptable" is generally a red flag for unacceptable behaviour.

  • azix2 #51 10 months ago

    Just pirate it. THey will learn. Oh wait... they are doing this because of piracy and second hand sales arent they? smh. Vicious cycle

  • curryking3 #52 10 months ago

    And what happens when versions are forced upon us are inferior to the product we previously had? Why can't I downgrade? Why can't I use a version of a product that I choose and which works for me? What happens when features and components of games simply disappear, because of an 'update?' What if I don't like the content or changes in the update?

    On maybe 360 and PS3, we have the option to at least delete updates. This is a fantastic feature. On Steam? Heck no. Unless I made multiple backups every time Team Fortress updated (which is itself unreasonable), then there's no chance.

    I can't even choose the right resolution in my Steam version of GTA: San Andreas thanks to updates. Thanks.

    The advertised model is never nearly as rosy as it sounds. Yes, some good can come out of it, but Willits and others can't walk around like nothing bad can possibly happen.
    Edited by curryking3 at 10/08/11 @ 17:29

  • bad09 #53 10 months ago

    Thank god for companies like:

    Capcom

    "The argument that legitimate users would have a worse experience than pirates was the loudest and most convincing. We certainly don’t want that to be the case and that was never our intention.

    So we’ve heard you loud and clear and here’s what we’re going to do about it:”

    CD Projekt Red

    "In our opinion, it is more important to encourage acquisition of original game copies than to punish those who play pirated copies. As per our policy, we will do our utmost to prevent the adopted DRM solution, if any, from making life difficult for those who acquire legal game copies. I can't imagine using any protection that would deprive game fans of any of the pleasure that
    will come from playing the game, as has been the case with other notable PC game titles."

    Avalanche

    “The DRM does not stop piracy,” he claimed, “it just punishes the people who have actually paid for the game. It’s completely useless. Forcing people to be online all the time and so on doesn’t show respect to the people who actually buy PC games.”

    These are the type of companies that will see my money in the internet DRM hell future this dick and the rest of his ilk wants. Your industry has butchered the PC as a gaming platform enough in the name of stopping pirates you really want to run it into the ground completely for sales you won't get anyway?

  • fmyasitch #54 10 months ago

    PLEASE listen.. all of you (who get upvotes ^.^) are right, BUT THIS IS RIDICULOUS! His point is STUPID! Ok listen: he says he wants the players to just play and the game automatically updates. OK BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO FORCE PLAYERS TO BE PERMANENTLY CONNECTED FOR THAT?! How about... ummm just IF THEY ARE CONNECTED, it updates and all the other shenanigans Steam already does, AND IF NOT YOU CAN STILL PLAY!

    I think piracy will be a lot more important for me if they start with this.. I used to not buy any game, but forced myself to not pirate stuff anymore. And they just shit in my face.. thanks..

    edit: bad09, i love you. plus you're right!
    Edited by fmyasitch at 10/08/11 @ 18:28

  • super_monty #55 10 months ago

    I will just buy a ps2

  • Harmonica #56 10 months ago

    I don't care what games you might have worked on aeons ago, you are wrong and don't have a fucking clue what people playing games actually want in this day and age.

    Keep cashing that paycheque and being out of touch, dadio.

  • shadowdogg #57 10 months ago

    Hopefully people pirate it more just for the sake of it.

  • Machetazo #58 10 months ago

    @16: I remember something like that happening with Quake 3 Arena! One of my favourite maps was removed from the single player/bot rotation, after 1.31 :( I used to love gunning after Patriot through it, but could no longer do so, after the update.

  • metalangel #59 10 months ago

    Hey, gamers in the armed forces! Thanks for defending our freedom to make a product you now won't be able to use.

  • apoc_reg #60 10 months ago

    Imagine carrying your pc into the living room to play Doom 4 on your 50 inch plasma.... but your ethernet cable isnt long enough... Oh

  • Ahskay #61 10 months ago

    Yes it would be better, unfortunately my ISP and cable line don't agree, download limits don't help either. Silly me for living in Belgium but that's the way it is. Check back in ten years when we have fibre without outage for maintenance and i will consider your argument again. As for now, 24/24h internet connection is a utopia. So quit the rubbish as good persistent internet connections only represent a minority.

    If Diablo 3 is a pioneer and will change the way of pc games then i won't buy it, wouldn't do it first anyway but this convinced me even more and i won't buy rage either now as i only support companies who care about their customers.
    Edited by Ahskay at 10/08/11 @ 19:11

  • ajaxpliskin #62 10 months ago

    For those people with 'choppy' internet, maybe it's time to stop using Tesco Broadband? You can get amazing internet deals for pretty low prices these days. I live in the UK, and my internet is great. I'm with Virgin. BE internet are also very good.

    EDIT
    This edit is for the simpletons that have neg'd my comment. Read it again, no where do I mention that I support online-only gaming, because I don't support online-only gaming.
    Edited by ajaxpliskin at 10/08/11 @ 20:17

  • immateriaux #63 10 months ago

    Seems some publishers really trying to drive this even though its nonsensical bullshit of the highest order. ""I'm a big proponent of always connected. I'm always connected", yeah well some of us like the leave the house every so often and move around in the real world, knobhead. I hope people can be strong enough about this to say screw you, and ignore their products altogether when they try this crap, plenty of good games out there, we don't need to say yes to this.

  • Tryhard #64 10 months ago

    As choppy as Freddy Kruegers hands...Now thats choppy.

  • silversun #65 10 months ago

    All stuff below is my own personal view.

    If more games go this route it will only be a matter of time till next industry crash.
    What the industry needs is an online games with features that are constant updated and more traditional single player games that dont require online internet connection.
    At a lower price as well.

    What will happen is the long time gamer will move away from big company games and go to other areas in video games.
    Always online is bad, having an updater is not so bad.

    Maybe they wont lose the casual gamers but they will lose the long time gamers and they will go elsewhere.
    I have to be honest and say my intrest in games is dying fast in recent times because everything feels the same and there is a feeling its all about marketing.
    I have lost some of my passion for games , no i not going give it up but i need get away from it and branch out to my other intrests more which would be good thing for me personaly.

    If they do it fine, after all it's there choice but at least i have a choice as well and it not about entitement for me.

  • CamberGreber #66 10 months ago

    What a stupid Shit.

    Coming at us with this marketing BullShit.

    Just so they can quietly put an end to piracy.

    Has Carmack ever heard of Steam?
    Of course he has so he is obviously full of shit.

  • jabberwoky #67 10 months ago

    So, he knows that no-one wants this. He says that a blockbuster will "force" everyone into accepting it. My respect for ID just went down the toilet. Anyway I cant think of a better way to wreck a franchise than to saddle it with something unpopular. People on these boards go on about how many great games are coming, how they can't afford them all, don't have time to play them all. Well it seems to me even blockbusters can be dropped, there's plenty else around. If you don't like it, hit them where it hurts.

  • ajaxpliskin #68 10 months ago

    @CamberGreber

    John Carmack's name isn't mentioned once in the article. There are 200 employees at id Software.

  • metalangel #69 10 months ago

    I completely agree with you, silversun.

  • 32768Colours #70 10 months ago

    The possibility of me never buying another piece of gaming hardware is mounting by the day.

    Seriously, if the future of gaming lies in being 'always connected' then I'm looking for another hobby. The ironic thing is that I am in fact always connected when using my consoles or PC, but that's not the point.

    The point is that my connection is nowhere near 100% reliable so I shouldn't have to rely on the stability of my internet connection to use software that could work perfectly fine without it. Its an entirely arbitrary measure and use of language such as "force" is more than enough proof of that. They think that if they keep pushing this sort of crap that eventually we'll embrace it, but the reality is, if you want to play these games you have no bloody choice. Its not as though choosing to play a game you like the look of is the same as loving all the DRM crap that goes with it.

    Basically, I'm getting sick of being punished for being a legitimate consumer only to be told that we've never had it so good. A total crock and not really something I'm willing to put up with if it becomes ubiquitous.
    Edited by 32768Colours at 11/08/11 @ 03:29

  • tankboi #71 10 months ago

    Respect...fading....

    Sorry lost connection there for a second.

  • Freek #72 10 months ago

    Always on internet connection is not designed to make games better. and you can't just magicly update games either, it still takes time to downlaod and instal that patch.

    It's purely for the publisher and nobody else.

    I like what Tycho at Penny Arcade pointed out about the cheating. What does it matter in a game like Diablo 3 that's mostly about co-op? Why would you care how your partner got his/her gear? You aren't the one being cheated because you're both fighting on the same side.

    But who is being cheated? Oh yeah, the free money machine known as the real money auction house.

  • Lord_Gremlin #73 10 months ago

    Ownership. That's the problem. If you must be connected you don't own the copy of a game. When publisher decides to steal it from you in 10-15 years you'll see the problem.

  • samal90 #74 10 months ago

    This will definitively encourage piracy instead of taking care of it. People that don't want this limitation...(most of us) will probably download the game. Congrats for the great idea from the gaming industry.
    I don't understand the idea of making us less and less free in every aspect of our lives. If I'm going on a trip or just to my weekend home (which doesn't have internet, cause i'm there only like 10 weekends a year) I can't play my game cause someone decided I should be connected. It doesn't make sense.

    So Blizzard and ID should not complain if their games are heavily downloaded...it will be completely their fault.

  • bad09 #75 10 months ago

    @samal90

    To be fair to ID as a company this fool is not saying Rage will have such restrictons he is under the illusion that it will be forced on customers by all companies once a big game like Diablo3 suddenly and magically makes us all like being chained like dogs to our internet on the product we buy.

    He then goes on with some balls about in game whoring of content and autopatching being invented because of always online despite the fact we had it for years without being chained.
    Edited by bad09 at 10/08/11 @ 21:44

  • Inmediasress #76 10 months ago

    I can honestly tell that for some time now I'm waiting for an industry crash.
    I know it's not nice whishing people to become unemployed but honestly this fucked up shit that we call gaming industry will only come to it's senses if someone slaps it across its face.
    Seriously the gaming industry is worse than the music industry even they aren't as out of touch with reality.
    The last few years they really took turns for the worse, ruined some of my favourite game franchises, forced idiotic DRM and then they have the nerve to say to my face that it's all for my benefit.
    Not to mention that everytime I hear a gaming interview or press release or anything it's like listening to some campaign speech during election time.

  • Sevens #77 10 months ago

    Better for everyone who matters. Publishers, mostly.

  • suicidal_penguins #78 10 months ago

    Agree with many comments above, gaming is getting to be a real turn off at times these days, publishers seem so up front insulting with this "you are all thieves", "we will force you to eat our shit", and so on. The big budget stuff is getting more bland by the minute too, I can't see this being sustenible at all. Then again, what's the betting a load of lemmings rush out and get Diablo 3 regardless?

  • Rack #79 10 months ago

    Imagine picking up the game, and being able to play it!

    Witcher 2 auto-updates with absolutely no dipshit DRM required whatsoever. If that means I don't have to watch some shitty ad for DLC every time I start it up then so be it.

  • Veracity #80 10 months ago

    He really should've gone with "true fans". Not sure he absolutely maximized the opportunity to come off as an out-of-touch, condescending twat who should never be allowed within fifty paces of a press pass, there.

  • neonato1806 #81 10 months ago

    /Soapbox
    I'm probably going to be a minority on this and frankly I can care less. This is the 21st century, and there is a little thing called technological progression. Everything changes. That's a matter of fact. Should game companies be accountable for the fact that people have horrible ISP's that drop their connection consistently? Go with a new one, or how about go move somewhere where you can be online consistently. In this day and age there are a multitude of devices that have constant internet access ALL THE TIME. What's your excuse? Should game companies cater to the needs of a .00009% minority that want to play their more advanced games but are trying on a Windows 98 machine? Its not supported for a reason. Some form of accountability should be given by consumers to ensure they can play these games. Update your PC's, find another ISP, or if you really want to go as far to improve your situation how about contacting local, state, province, country or whatever government agency you can to petition for better internet infrastructure where you live by requesting they fund it. Sitting here bitching about stuff isn't going to fix the problem you have. Now granted thats not going to fix the single player issue and all the information being stored on a cloud database, but thats going to be your decision whether you are going to want to buy it or not. There are going to many others, like myself who have a consistent connection and will play the game. Looking at all the complaining and crying over this was amusing at first, but now this is just getting downright annoying. /end soapbox

  • aids #82 10 months ago

    @neonato1806

    It's about ownership. What happens when, 5 years down the track, they decide to turn off the servers that support the game you bought and 'own'? Having internet or not is just one of the issues here.

  • WillakaBill #83 10 months ago

    Whatchoo talkin bout willits?!

  • TheGuvernor #84 10 months ago


    BOLLOX - to infringing on my freedom.
    If I pay for a game I'll play it where I want, when I want.
    No nerd king mofo is going to tell me 'always on' is better for me.

    I love Id - lose this idiot, he's bad for your image.

  • Neil__ #85 10 months ago

    The most amusing thing about this debate is that people think they’re using superior arguments by agreeing with this when all they're actually doing is bending over and taking a good butt fucking and then making excuses for their sore arse.

    Edit, typo
    Edited by Neil__ at 11/08/11 @ 21:54

  • ToAks #86 10 months ago

    this is just bullshit...

    network connections are unstable and i have been without internet for as long as 2 months in a row, ok that was 4 years ago alright but still it wasnt my fault as lightning took out the central and all the equipment aswell so when they finally managed to repair the junction box/central we found out that the router etc was broken too... and it was summer vacation so everything took way too long and in the end it was 9 weeks without internet.

    9 weeks without playing games?, fuck no!

    this "always connected" idea can just fuck off and i can safely say that i will never support it.

  • Inmediasress #87 10 months ago

    @neonato1806
    The problem is that you don't understand that one thing leads to another if you don't take steps.
    First it's just internet connection next you will pay for the server maintence cost and further down the road they will drip feed you with incomplete games and patches so you will have to be linked to them so they can milk you.
    You are one of the biggest problems of the gaming industry, the gullible masses that just don't care about anything until it's too late.
    Tell me do you also go voting without caring for whom you vote? If so you should just stay at home.

    Besides have you ever heard that "all that glitters is not gold"?
    The internet used to be about freedom of information and there was a time when it almost worked, now it's just sad.
    Nowadays you have to sing up and pay for almost everything it isn't the land of free information anymore.
    You have to pay for services within services and if you think about it for too long your head hurts it's so convulsed.

  • bad09 #88 10 months ago

    @neonato1806

    As has been pointed out to you and constantly to the rest of the minority fine with this type of thing it's about ownership (as well as travelling or hardware, router, ISP, exchange problems). Why on earth would pay actual money to own something you are dicated to as to when you can use said product.

    Would you buy an TV with internet services that simply didn't work at all with no internet? Would you buy a Blu where the actual movie as well as BD Live didn't work offline? Would you buy CDs that would not work without internet? Would you be happy if you whole PS3 didn't work when PSN is offline?

    This DRM restricts legitimate customers far too much (while not stopping and encouraging piracy) and if you can't see how bad that is then it's no wonder the industry relies on people like you to push this kind of anti consumer control through ruining gaming for the rest of us.

    You may find people against this stuff annoying but we find people happy to be treated like this and willing to pay for it depressing as hell to be honest.

  • suicidal_penguins #89 10 months ago

    Yeah, neonato1806, you're being very limited in your thoughts there but, as I referred to, there's always a fair sized posse of lemmings around willing to make stupid choices. Sure there's technological progress, remember Sony's rootkits on CDs, that was a bit of technology too. You happy with any technology then? It's a daft point of view you're trying to peddle there and removed from reality. I play games on my laptop on a train. Usually gog games as it happens but I would have no choice about Diablo, can't get wifi and although I have a 3G dongle it's data capped. These people are talking about having updates I would have no awareness of as though it's a good thing. It fucking isn't. Removing choice is never a good thing be it doing things when i don't want them to or making the game completely unavailable to me offline. Technological advances should be freeing us, not limiting us.

  • bf #90 10 months ago

    That statement sounds a lot like forced updates and in-game advertising. Better for everyone oh yes indeed...

  • 3william56 #91 10 months ago

    3 articles below: "PSN offline all Thursday". If this idiot had his way every PS3 would now be a paperweight. Anyone living in a remote island or town would be permanently barred from gaming. Someday these companies will remember that they serve their customers, not the other way around.

  • Machetazo #92 10 months ago

    "Basically, I'm getting sick of being punished for being a legitimate consumer only to be told that we've never had it so good. A total crock and not really something I'm willing to put up with if it becomes ubiquitous. "

    One hundred times over, THIS, and well said, Colours.

  • Aradiel #93 10 months ago

    @ajaxpliskin - The reason that you were negged is not because the commenters are "simpletons" (by the way, nice way to encourage people to re-read your post - insult them, that will work!)
    The reason you are negged is because you assume that everyone who has a choppy connection is on "Tesco" broadband - basically saying choppy connections only come with bad isps.

    But bad connections come with all isps dependent upon where you live, amongst other things. You fail to take into account the fact that connections are not consistent within companies and within the country - they vary greatly due to a large number of factors.

    tl:Dr; You got negged for not thinking about your comment, for being a simpleton yourself.

    ------------

    No connection is constant. Every computer programmer, engineer or developer worth his salt knows that everything has a "mean time to failure", that everything will fail eventually. So, the concept of a constant connection is an oxymoron, because not only do they not exist, but it is impossible for them to exist.

    Willits, from his comments, has demonstrated that he fails as a techie.
    Edited by Aradiel at 11/08/11 @ 13:35

  • stangoober #94 10 months ago

    "There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game. But it'll change."

    Yes because I won't bother.

    Id... consider me NOT a fan anymore. I'm too old for this BS. Video games are a waste of time anyway as it is. Stick your plasma rifle where the sun don't shine, jerks.

  • Harmonica #95 10 months ago

    I'm surprised you've been a fan this long! The last good id game was Return to Castle Wolfenstein (and that was just picking up a producer credit). Pretty sure most people on the street wouldn't have a clue who they are any more. Sad.
    Edited by Harmonica at 12/08/11 @ 08:26

  • nb #96 10 months ago

    @aids: I suggest you do some reading on the laws surrounding video games. You don't "own" a game, you merely have a license to play it - hence the terms & conditions almost all modern games force you to agree to when you install them. It's the same with any media, e.g. DVD/Blu-Ray, music CDs, etc.