''DRM can really force people to use pirated games'': StarForce speaks to games.on.net about piracy, customer anger, and more

[Marius]

Half and half.

Good luck clearing inferno hardcore single player.

It has, though, been designed for co-op from the ground up, whereas Diablo1/2 was not.

[Bluefire]

Just requires gear, skill and time. So like I said, singleplayer with the option to multiplayer, therefore no constant internet connection required.

[Marius]

But that's not a full argument.

The Diablo co-op experience is quite different from the single player experience. Different builds and tactics are needed.

You can't get it from single player. You're just choosing to not want to explore this aspect of the game.

So I can just say that WoW should be single player for times people don't want to do raids or dungeons?

[Bluefire]

No, the majority of wow's content requires multiplayer.
None of d3's does. Yes the option exists and is promoted but is not required. Therefore always on connection is optional not required.

[Marius]

What... you can't get from 1-level cap in WoW single player?

[James Pinnell]

You're wrong about BF3.
They have a vast backend network setup handling just as much character data as GW2.
They have to maintain all the same level of log-in servers and the only data difference is in actual gameplay, but guess what, its not that much data, its not like here is Australia where we don't have unlimited quota.
They aren't paying their network links by the megabyte.

on top of that they use a browser interface which could well use up as much or more data as the character data in a game like GW2.

I have to dispute this. There are fundamental differences between the make up of a content server like Battlelog and a persistent MMO world. You're just thinking about bandwidth costs which are a fraction of the overall load. The reason MMO's largely require a subscription or ongoing funding is to cover the human capital required.

First off, and this isn't even taking into account dedicated servers for PC whcih aren't moderated or maintained by EA, offsite servers, the largest amount of people EA would have on a BF3 server would be 64. These servers do not have to be monitored 24/7 either, so you can almost essentially set them and forget them. Most server admins won't bother to monitor them unless there is a report of a cheater or the server drops offline for some reason.

An MMO server can sometimes hold up to 2000+ players, split across enormous zones that interface with other servers that host instanced content. These servers require an almost constant human presence of moderators and network administrators to ensure server load is stable, raid/event/quest content is operating correctly and players aren't harassing, griefing or abusing bugs.

On top of this, MMO servers are significantly more complex beasts - A BF3 server is a largely static empty field, where an MMO server involves NPC properties that may operate on scripting or an AI based free-mind algorithm. These properties are constantly changed and modified on the fly to improve gameplay, or as part of a real-time event that drastically impacts the state of the entire server.

MMO devs also need to introduce free new content on a regular basis, generally monthly and outside of a standard expansion pack system. This can include new quests, new raids/dungeons, loot, talents, abilities and so on. All of this stuff requires inhouse artists, programmers, designers and a host of other teams to roll out without delay.

If you're wondering about this, take a look at this great dev blog about how the team at CCP had to react to an enormous sudden spike in player activity thanks to the recent Burn Jita event. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2864 Can you imagine this happening in BF3?

[Bluefire]

1-85 in wow isnt all content.
1-60 in d3 isnt all content.
To complete all content in wow multiplayer is REQUIRED.
To complete all content in d3 mulitplayer is OPTIONAL.

D3 is a singleplayer game. It has the option to mulitplayer if you choose. It does not in any way require an always on connection.

[Marius]

You're looking at D3 from the wrong perspective.

D3 doesn't have 'content' like an MMO. It doesn't have content you burn through and get bored.

It's basically just killing monsters over and over.

So different players see this content in different ways. I see it as pure multiplayer content. I play almost no single player Diablo at all... 90% of my D2 was in groups.

And for me, online-only D3 is great because it means a more stable server, and more players to play with. And these are the players D3 is aimed at.

[Bluefire]

Yeah most of my d2 was at lan's.. Im not saying the multiplayer component isnt good and I wont use it alot, the majority of my d3 playtime will be atleast 2player with my wife.. Im just objecting to the always on connection being "required" when it is not required for actual gameplay...
Sure if I want to login an multiplayer it.. great. But in no way whatsoever is it actually required that I do multiplayer to complete the game (ie kill final boss)
In wow if you want to kill the final boss.. you must do multiplayer.

[Marius]

I'd still disagree... always on means more protection against hacks, and more players to play with.

Try to play Diablo 2 (or worse... 1) these days, and good luck finding a game not infested with bots or cheats.

That means a better gameplay experience for internet players. A worse experience for single players... but that's not who the game is aimed at.

[Bluefire]

More players.. sure if you choose to use it, Im playing wow and swtor atm..
Quite often in wow you dont WANT to play with the other players. (and swtor you cant find them to play with even if you want to)
Wont stop bots at all.
If you want to stop character hacks go NWN1 style. Characters are saved on the server you play on. You can allow or not allow importing of toons from offline.

Imo if the game was aimed at multiplayer people then multiplayer would be required to complete atleast SOME of the game. Its not tho...

[Otto-matic]

I am getting a little tired of the always online arguments. Seems to me to be one of "My Internet connection is stable so screw everyone else". Sure some features are very good, but an arguably single-player game should have the option to play offline. If the company would prefer people to be online, offer perks for them to do so. If necessary, block single-player sessions from joining online sessions to stop the hacks or whatever. Options, I prefer them, why don't you?

PS For those wanting an example of a successful model F2P game - World of Tanks. You can get from start to end game content without paying a single cent (not easily, but it can be done with enough time).

[TheBard]

But you forget

Time is money friend!

[RaTTuS007]

In china maybe, not anywhere else can you pay wow by the hour.

It's seems my humour has been lost on a few people , 730 hours is about 1 month

I originally thought that, but being the time of night that i posted at didnt use my brain at all

[Marius]

I am getting a little tired of the always online arguments. Seems to me to be one of "My Internet connection is stable so screw everyone else". Sure some features are very good, but an arguably single-player game should have the option to play offline. If the company would prefer people to be online, offer perks for them to do so. If necessary, block single-player sessions from joining online sessions to stop the hacks or whatever. Options, I prefer them, why don't you?

Because options aren't always compatible with each other.

Blocking single player sessions from joining online isn't the hacking problem. The hacking problem is giving people the server architecture to tinker with and create hacks that work in online sessions.

Likewise, D2 tried the perks approach, and people still got confused as to why they couldn't bring their offline characters into ladder matches.