Maybe all PC games should require an internet connection like D3.

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

how about... no.

there are many people out their with horrid or unstable connections. nothing they can do about it. imagine living in the middle of nowhere and you are waiting for your favorite game and find out it needs a connection? Disaster.

Diablo 3 has been cracked already just like Starcraft 2 was. DRM does not stop pirates.

rhazzy

Stop posting stupid things...you will make a fool out of urself...

There is no scene or p2p crack for DIablo 3...

And people who live in the middle of nowhere have other concern than playing games...like hunting to eat...fishing to eat...staying alive...Games are a luxury item...You play them if you can afford all the things necessary to run them...If you cant afford to have a solid or stable internet connection it is your problem...

I am the fool here... Hunting and fishing to stay alive... oh brother... :roll:

Middle of nowhere can mean the Yukon in Canada to a small village in Asia to Acension Island. We are talking about modern times with computers.

Computers are found all over the world and so are internet connections. Doesn't mean they are the best.

I know people from South America who have poor connections and have to order games online because they are not shipped to their countries. They don't have the best connections like people in the USA.

It would suck to wait for your favourite game series and find out it is only avaliable online while the previous titles had single player. Not a stable connection would ruin it.

Not everyone in the world is spoiled like you. Doesn't mean they don't play games and hunt fish to survive. grow up.

I think the always online idea is flawed, but the idea that your game requires the net often is'nt. Diablo 3 could've been a perfect example of this concept; where the developers update their game so often that people want to go online.That would be effective drm.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Why do people always assume that just because a game's servers will eventually go offline it will then be rendered unplayable? Sure they'll go down at some point, but why can't an offline mode be patched into the game when they do? When sales have lessened and piracy wouldn't have such an impact? I see no reason why a game needs to have always online forever. I'm no developer, but why can't they send out a massive patch that enables offline play much later in the game's lifespan? I'd think it'd theoretically be possible to combine the code from both the client and server. That's already what they're doing now, just over the net. Why wouldn't this work? Always online DRM is a safegaurd for piracy during the period of highest demand. But who cares a decade or more later?MirkoS77

Anybody (programmer) that could explain to me why this wouldn't be possible?

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]Why do people always assume that just because a game's servers will eventually go offline it will then be rendered unplayable? Sure they'll go down at some point, but why can't an offline mode be patched into the game when they do? When sales have lessened and piracy wouldn't have such an impact? I see no reason why a game needs to have always online forever. I'm no developer, but why can't they send out a massive patch that enables offline play much later in the game's lifespan? I'd think it'd theoretically be possible to combine the code from both the client and server. That's already what they're doing now, just over the net. Why wouldn't this work? Always online DRM is a safegaurd for piracy during the period of highest demand. But who cares a decade or more later?skrat_01

Anybody (programmer) that could explain to me why this wouldn't be possible?

Thanks for the reply.

I understant all that, but I'm wondering why it can't be done (technically speaking). I know it doesn't or hasn't yet, but years down the road when the servers go offline, they need to have some assurance the game will be playable or people will go ballistic. Steam has a contingency plan, I don't see why others don't. And "just because they don't" really isn't a valid reason.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Anybody (programmer) that could explain to me why this wouldn't be possible?

MirkoS77

Thanks for the reply.

I understant all that, but I'm wondering why it can't be done (technically speaking). I know it doesn't or hasn't yet, but years down the road when the servers go offline, they need to have some assurance the game will be playable or people will go ballistic. Steam has a contingency plan, I don't see why others don't. And "just because they don't" really isn't a valid reason.

Ubi has stated in the past that they will do what is necessary to ensure that people will be able to play their games if the servers were to be taken offline, but, and this is a big but, some Raven Shield expansion packs are unplayable now due to the CD-key servers being taken offline without a resulting patch so that they remained playable.

Will Blizzard do the same thing? Hard to say, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. I do not believe Ubi will patch the need out for a constant connection when the time comes to shut down the servers for the games that require OSP now.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Anybody (programmer) that could explain to me why this wouldn't be possible?

MirkoS77

Thanks for the reply.

I understant all that, but I'm wondering why it can't be done (technically speaking). I know it doesn't or hasn't yet, but years down the road when the servers go offline, they need to have some assurance the game will be playable or people will go ballistic. Steam has a contingency plan, I don't see why others don't. And "just because they don't" really isn't a valid reason.

Releasing any kind of patch like that is going to mean spending money to make it happen. A lot of publishers simply won't care about supporting an 'old game' somewhere down the line by releasing a patch to play offline, because their focus is to makemoney, and it's nonsensical to render an old game playable when they are trying to sell you a new game in the same franchise.

Look at the back catalogues of many of the big publishers and you'll see great franchises that are no longer supported. They don't release 'patches' or free 'installers' to enable you to install old games you own on disk that have 16-bit installers. No...what they do instead is repackage a game with an updated installer and sell it to you again via Steam or some other distribution service, because that way you're spending even more money. And that's only for some franchises they think are popular enough - others simply sit on the shelf gathering dust.

GOG.com has been good at getting publishers to resurrect some old games and getting them to work on current OSs, but still, you generally have to buy them again even if you own the original game, just to be able to install on Win 7 or Vista.

As for Steam's 'contingency plan' - go back and read the Terms of Service. There's nothing in the legal-speak that says they are obliged to release any patches to make games playable if the service goes down. In fact, it simply says the service can be shut down any time and they are not liable. Never mind hints or even straight up quotes or soundbites from those running the Steam service - because at the end of the day, the decision lies with the publisher or developer whether they will allow such a patch for their game. And a lot of publishers simply won't be interested in doing that. Hell, some of them might not even be around in the future.

You might get some developers trying to support their game after the fact - as ex Troika devs still continue to pump out patches for Vampire Masquerade Bloodlines - but they are usually the exception, not the rule.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Anybody (programmer) that could explain to me why this wouldn't be possible?

MirkoS77

Thanks for the reply.

I understant all that, but I'm wondering why it can't be done (technically speaking). I know it doesn't or hasn't yet, but years down the road when the servers go offline, they need to have some assurance the game will be playable or people will go ballistic. Steam has a contingency plan, I don't see why others don't. And "just because they don't" really isn't a valid reason.

diablo 3 works different, combining server and client side code, to make it work offline they would have to rearrange a big part of the code, is not that difficult but they aren't going to spend money coding for a game they are going to close. in case of steam the games are on your hard drive, the just need a small patch to remove drm and make it save on your pc instead of steam.

but i don't think thats a reason to care though, diablo 3 will be around for the next 10 years, diablo 2 is still played today and it s so old it hurts my eyes to see it.