• "Always online" requirement in video games
    48 replies, posted
I want to debate this because a friend of mine is absolutely convinced the market will not accept this. I believe always online is here to stay. All these years we've been trained to accept it, we've been experimented on. Diablo III created a shitstorm at release, yet sold millions of copies. When Starcraft II cut off LAN multiplayer, the internet was up in flames. Years later, the few who were very vocal in asking for LAN multiplayer are silent, and the second SC2 game has been released. Hell, even the recent SimCity wreck clearly shows what EA has in mind. They're even pushing their game "journalism" puppets to promote always online as a good thing. Always online has always been the publisher's wet dream (Sony and MS are also publishers, don't forget). It's just that the technology hasn't been up to the task until recently. A new generation of consoles is upon us, and they've all decided now is the time to fuck with us. The new consoles will be their excuse. When all them big publishers will mandate always online, there will be nowhere to turn to. Do you really, honestly expect core audiences such as millions of CoD dudebros and soccer moms of 13 year olds to boycott the next Xbox and PS4 just because of this? Sony and MS will probably point fingers at the publishers when criticized about always online. Then some people will be angry with the publishers, who won't give a shit about this and won't comment, or will just send out press releases citing various bullshit facts about always online. Then, once it will be a known fact that the cartel won't back down, Sony and MS will also release games with the requirement on, cause others do it too, you know. And here's another thing. Always online will probably work most of the time. There will be issues with launch titles. There will be issues with titles launched further into the console generation. But most of the bugs will be ironed out. Games and servers will run smoother and smoother as time passes. A point will be reached where the crowd of people who care about this will become insignificant. You can't fight a cartel in its own walled garden. Now I'm very curious about some counter arguments.
Personally I think it's a stupid idea and even worse than the DRM Ubisoft used to inforce on their PC games a year or so ago. Give it time and people will find ways to circumvent the always online bullshit for PCs. Consoles however are going to be crippled from this, and they will either need to wise up and cut it out or they're going to suffer big time.
what the hell are you trying to argue about from what i gather you're saying publishers have a wet dream over forced online play because the 1/10th of gamers like it and then the people who are angry will boycott and do nothing about it while the publishers keep forcing online play until everyone accepts it do you know how people think and how the market system works because i dont think you do
[QUOTE=Death_God;40441038]what the hell are you trying to argue about from what i gather you're saying publishers have a wet dream over forced online play because the 1/10th of gamers like it and then the people who are angry will boycott and do nothing about it while the publishers keep forcing online play until everyone accepts it do you know how people think and how the market system works because i dont think you do[/QUOTE] I get what he means by publisher's wet dream; it'd force people to ALWAYS buy games new, meaning they get more profit. Provided people would be willing to put up with this bullshit. Which they won't.
I know I won't be buying one. My internet barley let's me on my computer all the time, let alone consoles. I wouldn't even be able to use this one, and I'm pretty such their are many others who don't always have access to the internet.
I don't know. As a method of combating piracy I don't have the figures on that. However what matters to me is how does it affect the legitimate owners. In an MMO of course it makes no difference, because the nature of the game is always online. If a game offers heaps of functionality alongside and relevant to its always online nature, I probably would not mind. However saying that, a game which is meant to be single player only and offers no relevant features to being always online I would not support. Consumers in the video games industry are idiots. A lot of us like to bitch about DRM in games, but we go ahead and eventually buy the game anyways. In fact despite any legitimate problem, we will still buy what is offered to us. Gamers need to learn to vote with their wallet. Don't buy SimCity if you're expecting it to become DRM-free in the future. You would be telling EA that you support their product and they may make future decisions based off of their sales figures. Bitching on an obscure and irrelevant forum won't reach the decision makers at EA. If you have a problem with the game, don't buy it and if plenty of people did that then maybe future decisions will end up different. If you don't like something in a game but go ahead and buy it anyways, with knowledge of that problem before buying it, you only have yourself to blame. The market economy model is a powerful thing and as a consumer you can use it to influence what products the industry is going to offer to you.
What's the future for 'our' games? Quite bleak if they are forced to shutdown the servers to accommodate newer, popular games.
You can't say shit like "Diablo III created a shitstorm at release, yet sold millions of copies". Millions of copies were sold before and on the very first day of the release. It was a highly anticipated and advertised game, that's why so many people bought it. Just because people bought it, it doesn't mean they all like the always-on the game has. If I could I would have taken back buying D3. But on the other hand it taught me an important lesson. Don't buy always-on games, unless you want it purely for multiplayer. I really wanted to get simcity but when I heard it's always on, I gave it a pass.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40441450]You can't say shit like "Diablo III created a shitstorm at release, yet sold millions of copies". Millions of copies were sold before and on the very first day of the release.[/QUOTE] People knew this was an always online game, yet they didn't give a shit. Yes, they got burned. Yes, server issues lasted for weeks, but they were eventually fixed. Some people will probably never buy a Blizzard game or an always online game because of this, but I am arguing the number is small enough to be ignored by Blizzard. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;40441450]It was a highly anticipated and advertised game, that's why so many people bought it. Just because people bought it, it doesn't mean they all like the always-on the game has.[/QUOTE] But this is it, right here! Proof that people follow the brand instead of caring about always online. Imagine how many will follow Microsoft, despite the fact their new console will require players to be always online, despite the Diablo III launch issues, which most of the console players don't even know about. And I postulate it's possible to have a near-perfect launch for an always online game, as long as you have enough server power. Microsoft has entire datacenters. Of course, I'm guessing Xbox Next always online games won't be like Diablo III, with half of the game being actually generated server-side. [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] And here are some questions for people who plan to boycott an always online future: - if you wake up tomorrow and all new consoles and games from big publishers require you to be always online in order to play, what will you do? - will you turn to indie PC games? - will you abandon video games as a hobby? - what do you think other people will do? - how long do you think other boycotters will last until giving in to the dark side? - if things get better in terms of server issues, will this soften your stance? - will you be able to continue your boycott on moral grounds only, such as "always online is evil"? - how do you boycott an entire industry, when all the big publishers collude with the console makers to create an always online future? Hell, even their gaming "journalism" mouthpieces are in on this project.
I can understand the reasons companies would have for putting in always online DRM. It ensures a constant connection to their servers for online play in a multiplayer game, could potentially hinder cracking and thus prevent pirating, and potentially speed up things like load times in the game iteself. The problem though is that it's a misguided system. In a perfect world, the company's servers will always be up and everyone will be able to connect to them from anywhere in the world, but that's not the case, and most likely will [I]never [/I]be the case. The company is so set on protecting their game that they don't really think about people with slow internet, or spotty internet, or even no internet at all from time to time. If your internet goes out and you get disconnected from the game, you have a right to be mad about it, because in almost all cases it's not your fault that the disconnect happened. Online [I]activation[/I] for video games has been around for a very long time. A lot of games (including some on Steam) require you to put the key in on your first install, that way they can make sure it's a legitimate key and you actually own the game. That should be the end of it, in my opinion. After that you should be able to play offline if you feel like it, so that you don't risk losing saved games nor any other progress just because you can't connect to the company's servers.
I agree with the OP to some extent. There is very limited power a boycott can achieve. Especially considering that the companies who are boycotted don't know what their sales could have been like without the Always Online requirement. For all we know SimCity could have sold a thousand or several million more copies. As long as they receive a big intake they will see no reason to stop. There are a few points on which I differ. Firstly there are publishers (although generally they are either indie or less influential than big publishers) who successfully market their games for being DRM free. If mainstream games head this way there will be a massive niche (oxymoron?) for those games. The second point is that the legal environment for this sort of behaviour is changing massively in the coming years. For example a recent European Court of Justice case found that software vendors do not have the right to prevent a resale of software, even things like Steam games. I believe that the final conclusion for that case is still in the air, but it will be resolved and based on [URL="http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Commercial%20Contracts/Downloadable_software.pdf"]this ruling[/URL] I think it is likely this sort of thing falls in favour of the consumer. Having said that in [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10742056384168408518&hl=en&as_sdt=2,34&as_vis=1"]Vernor v Autodesk, INC.[/URL] it was ruled that software license is different to sale of a physical copy. In my opinion this kind of DRM is useless, especially considering it is possible to circumvent it. Any company that reduces DRM to a minimum deserves (and will receive) purchases just for that reason. You may be right OP, but I live in the hope that it will be the global legal system that saves us from these ridiculous DRM policies. It'll be more beneficial to the companies in the long run anyway.
[QUOTE=zugu;40441946]People knew this was an always online game, yet they didn't give a shit. Yes, they got burned. Yes, server issues lasted for weeks, but they were eventually fixed. Some people will probably never buy a Blizzard game or an always online game because of this, but I am arguing the number is small enough to be ignored by Blizzard.[/QUOTE] 1. That is an assumption. 2. They are still losing profit, regardless.
[QUOTE=Doomish;40442224]The problem though is that it's a misguided system. In a perfect world, the company's servers will always be up and everyone will be able to connect to them from anywhere in the world, but that's not the case, and most likely will [I]never [/I]be the case.[/QUOTE] Agreed, but look at cloud computing offerings. More and more companies are starting to offload computations and hosting to the cloud. Will all of them make the switch? Hell no. There will always be some companies paranoid enough about their own data falling in the hands of others. There will always be companies who have more to lose because of one hour of cloud downtime, than having an in-house server farm. Yet the cloud is good enough for most use cases, or if it's not, it will be there in a few years. Is it difficult to imagine a future where most companies are using some form or cloud computing, while hardcore enterprise stuff is done the old way? By analogy, I think this will also happen with always online games. Most people won't care, and there will be a minority of people who will care. Publishers will have already written them off, as an acceptable trade-off. This has happened before, and will happen again. Company X makes some drastic decision that angers customer base, but if company X is a monopoly or a cartel, customer base takes it in the ass and adjusts. [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;40442718]1. That is an assumption. 2. They are still losing profit, regardless.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's an assumption. Yes, lost profit is lost profit, but I'm implying they can tolerate some lost money now, if they think they have more to win in the long term.
[QUOTE=zugu;40442755]Yes, it's an assumption. Yes, lost profit is lost profit, but I'm implying they can tolerate some lost money now, if they think they have more to win in the long term.[/QUOTE] For the benefit of what? This is a business. If they are losing money due to always online DRM, they should be gaining something MAJOR in return. The only 'benefit' is the reduction of piracy - but even that isn't working.
[QUOTE=David29;40442806]For the benefit of what? This is a business. If they are losing money due to always online DRM, they should be gaining something MAJOR in return. The only 'benefit' is the reduction of piracy - but even that isn't working.[/QUOTE] I agree with this. You could probably gain the money back and then some on consoles if everybody has to buy the game new, but you already had to on Steam anyways. So they are just losing money thanks to always online because there are definitely people out there who aren't going to buy the games.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40443290]If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.[/QUOTE] What if I like the game but not the always-online policy? I don't think the major game publishers out there care if I personally buy their game or not. "If you don't like X, then don't Y" is a very cop-out argument because in this situation I do like X... I just won't be able to be internet-connected 100% of the time, where X [I]requires[/I] me to do so. Always-online DRM won't keep me from buying a game if the game is good enough. It is a problem, but it's not a make-it-or-break-it problem, at least for me. I'd rather be able to play the game most of the time than not play it at all as a useless form of protest.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40443290]If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.[/QUOTE] Your statement is a bit redundant - since that is exactly what is happening. Developers and publishers [b]are[/b] losing customers because of their DRM policy. I didn't buy SimCity 5 purely because it was always online. Even UbiSoft - a company I once hated more than EA because of its DRM policy - has changed course because they realise that it isn't working.
I don't see the big deal, Steam has been doing this for years and nobody has complained this much about it. Heck, with Steam I've had to have an internet connection in order to play Fallout, a game from the 90's, so they've even customized games so that it requires Steam to be online in order for it to work. Now surely you're able to run Steam in offline mode, but back when that wasn't available I didn't see people buycutting producers to get it fixed.
[QUOTE=Tools;40446060]I don't see the big deal, Steam has been doing this for years and nobody has complained this much about it.[/QUOTE] That's not the same thing. With Steam, you only need to be connected to their servers to download the game. Once it is on your hard drive, the only thing you need to have running to play the game is the Steam program. Always-online means [I]always[/I]-online, as in, you have to have a constant connection to the developer's servers to even play it. What Steam does is what other developers [I]should[/I] do, but they don't. It's nice of the various publishers out there to host their own servers for the multiplayer games out there, but it's [I]not[/I] nice of them to force players to be connected to them at all times even in single player.
My [B][I][U]only[/U][/I][/B] concern for this is for the people who don't have internet, or have a horrible ISP. What the biggest [B][I][U]problem[/U][/I][/B] is that people that torrent, crack, w/e find ways to remove the restriction for these cracked copies, but honest gamers such as myself usually get screwed in the long run. I remember Sim City 5 where someone hacked the game just to prove the simulation was NOT on the server like they had claimed, and he was able to play the game, while I was sitting there cursing at my screen for a solid 3 days. Same with Diablo. This system is put into play to combat piracy, but the solution does not even scratch the surface for the problem at hand. Crackers can play, honest people can't. My next issue is: What happens when the company shuts down/goes out of buisness/servers crash/etc. Guess what... Honest gamers can't play yet again, where crackers are still gaming away. In the case of the servers being taken down due to the company going out of business: this situation just destroys the game as a whole, rendering it completely useless data on your HDD because it relies on a server that ceases to exist. I'm not saying I'm against, nor for the Always-Online DRM, but if companies are gonna impose restrictions on gamers, make sure it is for the right reason and accomplishes the goals it is designed for - which it CLEARLY isn't. EDIT: Also subscribed to the thread for interest of a wannabe game developer [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Kegan;40441061]I get what he means by publisher's wet dream; it'd force people to ALWAYS buy games new, meaning they get more profit. Provided people would be willing to put up with this bullshit. Which they won't.[/QUOTE] Not to mention this is gonna KILL companies such as GameStop where people trade games. Best example is the new gen console's where the CD is tied to the account/console.
[QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40447339]My [B][I][U]only[/U][/I][/B] concern for this is for the people who don't have internet, or have a horrible ISP. What the biggest [B][I][U]problem[/U][/I][/B] is that people that torrent, crack, w/e find ways to remove the restriction for these cracked copies, but honest gamers such as myself usually get screwed in the long run. I remember Sim City 5 where someone hacked the game just to prove the simulation was NOT on the server like they had claimed, and he was able to play the game, while I was sitting there cursing at my screen for a solid 3 days. Same with Diablo. This system is put into play to combat piracy, but the solution does not even scratch the surface for the problem at hand. Crackers can play, honest people can't. My next issue is: What happens when the company shuts down/goes out of buisness/servers crash/etc. Guess what... Honest gamers can't play yet again, where crackers are still gaming away. In the case of the servers being taken down due to the company going out of business: this situation just destroys the game as a whole, rendering it completely useless data on your HDD because it relies on a server that ceases to exist. I'm not saying I'm against, nor for the Always-Online DRM, but if companies are gonna impose restrictions on gamers, make sure it is for the right reason and accomplishes the goals it is designed for - which it CLEARLY isn't. EDIT: Also subscribed to the thread for interest of a wannabe game developer [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] Not to mention this is gonna KILL companies such as GameStop where people trade games. Best example is the new gen console's where the CD is tied to the account/console.[/QUOTE] it's exponentially harder to crack the kind of DRM used in SC5 or D3 because you need to have / emulate a server to play it case in point: SC5 hasn't been succesfully cracked yet, so you can rest in peace knowing that you can play it and they can't! furthermore, as internet infrastructure / stability improves, always-online drm will probably be the best kind of DRM - it's super hard to crack and it doesn't require much user input, so customers can just tie it to an account and play it with no hassle
[QUOTE=Juniez;40447506]it's exponentially harder to crack the kind of DRM used in SC5 or D3 because you need to have / emulate a server to play it case in point: SC5 hasn't been succesfully cracked yet, so you can rest in peace knowing that you can play it and they can't! furthermore, as internet infrastructure / stability improves, always-online drm will probably be the best kind of DRM - it's super hard to crack and it doesn't require much user input, so customers can just tie it to an account and play it with no hassle[/QUOTE] You are a little bit behind my friend. You are also wrong in needing to emulate the server... because calculations for SC5 is NOT on the server like they claim. Sim City 5 actually has already been cracked... Shortly after its release too: [URL="http://www.geekosystem.com/hack-takes-simcity-offline/"]http://www.geekosystem.com/hack-takes-simcity-offline/ [/URL] Diablo 3 has as well... But of course I do understand that certain implementations of the client/server model will work perfectly against piracy where calculations are ALL on the server: GMod is one of those models. But my point still remains on the latter; what happens when the servers go down permanently. [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;40447506]furthermore, as internet infrastructure / stability improves, always-online drm will probably be the best kind of DRM - it's super hard to crack and it doesn't require much user input, so customers can just tie it to an account and play it with no hassle[/QUOTE] This I completely agree with. In fact as I said this is how it should be. But the problem at hand is always online DRM for games that don't need it. If its a multiplayer game... GO FOR IT, but make sure the client/server model has the calculations on a Server->Client calculation, and not purely client.
[QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40447600]You are a little bit behind my friend. You are also wrong in needing to emulate the server... because calculations for SC5 is NOT on the server like they claim. Sim City 5 actually has already been cracked... Shortly after its release too: [URL="http://www.geekosystem.com/hack-takes-simcity-offline/"]http://www.geekosystem.com/hack-takes-simcity-offline/ [/URL] Diablo 3 has as well... But of course I do understand that certain implementations of the client/server model will work perfectly against piracy where calculations are ALL on the server: GMod is one of those models. But my point still remains on the latter; what happens when the servers go down permanently.[/QUOTE] Simcity boots you out after 20 minutes, so that not a very successful crack. also IIRC Diablo 3 took quite some time to get cracked unfortunately though if the servers go down then the game would probably stop working. I can only hope that they remove their DRM in such an event though [QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40447600]If its a multiplayer game... GO FOR IT, but make sure the client/server model has the calculations on a Server->Client calculation, and not purely client.[/QUOTE] but why? in a purely DRM scenario it would be better to keep doing all calculations on the client because then there's less load on the server, which would mean less hiccups and downtime
[QUOTE=Juniez;40447944][B]Simcity boots you out after 20 minutes,[/B] so that not a very successful crack. also IIRC Diablo 3 took quite some time to get cracked unfortunately though if the servers go down then the game would probably stop working. I can only hope that they remove their DRM in such an event though [/QUOTE] No, you have it backwards. That's the always-online DRM that does that. If you loose connection to the servers and don't reestablish it in 20 minutes the game kicks you out. The crack eliminates that. The video, which I'm assuming you didn't bother to watch, shows that the simulation is entirely client-side. However, in order to actually obtain the city, you must first download it from the server. The crack in the video even shows the success in uploading cities with roads outside the boundaries and still have them work once he re-logs. But why do it? Well as I said earlier. It is meant to stop piracy, but it isn't doing so currently. I agree it would be logical to keep calculations on the client, but in doing so, you are rendering the whole DRM system for the always online completely vulnerable to be attacked - which is exactly how SC3 is now in an offline only state with the crack.
[QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40448056]No, you have it backwards. That's the always-online DRM that does that. If you loose connection to the servers and don't reestablish it in 20 minutes the game kicks you out. The crack eliminates that. The video, which I'm assuming you didn't bother to watch, shows that the simulation is entirely client-side. However, in order to actually obtain the city, you must first download it from the server. The crack in the video even shows the success in uploading cities with roads outside the boundaries and still have them work once he re-logs. But why do it? Well as I said earlier. It is meant to stop piracy, but it isn't doing so currently. I agree it would be logical to keep calculations on the client, but in doing so, you are rendering the whole DRM system for the always online completely vulnerable to be attacked - which is exactly how SC3 is now in an offline only state with the crack.[/QUOTE] well, no, the crack doesn't eliminate it because there isn't one I know the always-online doesn't do any actual serverside simulation, it's a method of DRM
[QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40448056]No, you have it backwards. That's the always-online DRM that does that. If you loose connection to the servers and don't reestablish it in 20 minutes the game kicks you out. The crack eliminates that. The video, which I'm assuming you didn't bother to watch, shows that the simulation is entirely client-side. However, in order to actually obtain the city, you must first download it from the server. The crack in the video even shows the success in uploading cities with roads outside the boundaries and still have them work once he re-logs. But why do it? Well as I said earlier. It is meant to stop piracy, but it isn't doing so currently. I agree it would be logical to keep calculations on the client, but in doing so, you are rendering the whole DRM system for the always online completely vulnerable to be attacked - which is exactly how SC3 is now in an offline only state with the crack.[/QUOTE] You're misunderstanding the "crack". It's not even a crack, someone just changed the logout timer from 20 to something like -1. You still need the game to play it, which to start it up requires you to be online. SimCity is a pretty poor example of a cracked always-online game considering it isn't even cracked completely.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40448210]You're misunderstanding the "crack". It's not even a crack, someone just changed the logout timer from 20 to something like -1. You still need the game to play it, which to start it up requires you to be online. SimCity is a pretty poor example of a cracked always-online game considering it isn't even cracked completely.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SeveredSkull;40447339]I remember Sim City 5 where someone hacked the game just to prove the simulation was NOT on the server like they had claimed[/QUOTE] You weren't reading. [editline]27th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Juniez;40448153]well, no, the crack doesn't eliminate it because there isn't one I know the always-online doesn't do any actual serverside simulation, it's a method of DRM[/QUOTE] Oh I know, but the fact that the server just runs as authentication server on most AODRM and has no effect on the game itself leaves it vulnerable to be attacked. As you pointed out in the PMs, you still need to be connected for SC to download the cities, but this may or may not be the case in other games that have AODRM... especially single player ones.
From the third world country perspective, most of the times it is very hard to purchase these kind of games legally because of currency exchanges and difficulties, and you can always find a pirated copy available on DVD somewhere, makes these games simply not sell. I'm one of the few people in my country that I know of that have the amount of games that I have on Steam, and that was because I make my income in dollars. I find always online to be an incredibly naive solution to a much more complicated problem, much akin to using fake video cameras to deter trespassers. Piracy happens for many reasons, and the industry should be working on being more convenient than piracy instead of locking itself down in measures that are very, very easy to break. Here's the problem with always-online schemes, the way they work is basically the program sends a message to a particular server basically asking if the key associated with this game is legit and waits for an answer. Every single crack for these kind of games works by merely making pretending to be that server, and send the game that answer through a faked message. This is impossible to avoid in any way because that's just how TCP/IP works. It's not a particularly secure protocol, since the client will ALWAYS wait for that same answer, it can always be faked. Every single always-online scheme is destined to fail. And you could hypothetically delay the time it takes for someone to make that fake software, you could make it demand more and more data from the server, which takes up bandwidth, you could require additional input by the client, which nags, you could do a myriad of things that won't ever stop the unavoidable. Want a legit DRM scheme? You could go even more draconic and depend on hardware systems like some digital audio workstations are doing, or you could just go attack the root of the problem and change the way games are distributed. The 60 dollar pricetag is ridiculous for most games on the market since there are no distribution costs to software and has brought the industry into seeking for quantity instead of quality. Always-online schemes are costly and nagging to the consumer, costly for publishers who have to run servers capable of such high demand just for authenticating an otherwise offline game, and simply not effective as you can easily tell by how every single game with such a DRM scheme is currently available pirated somewhere.
Where I live the only available internet I can use is satellite internet. My average ping has 4 digits. I'm not joking. These always online DRM measures actually prevent me from buying their game. I liked Diablo II but 3 having always online was an insta "Do not buy" for me. I played Assassins creed but when they announced 3(?) was online as well I immediately dropped the series as I just simply cannot do that. The companies alienated a wanting and willing customer by introducing a system that by it's very nature lowers the amount of possible customers it can have. I mean it's simple math for requirements: No DRM = A system that can play it. Always Online = A system that can play it + An internet connection + A connection that can handle the load. There is no physically possible way to make the second option as good or better than the first option. You will in every case lower potential customers. Even if those customers legitimately want to buy their product. If this is going to be the future of video gaming it looks really bleak for me. P.S. Going on a bit of a tangent here but another case of my internet causing me to not buy games is when there is no local multiplayer. It has literally been years since I've bought a game that actually used a 2nd controller and not the internet. And even longer for one that wasn't a fighter.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.