News Ubisoft: Market ready for always-online services

Ubisoft Montreal studio head has stated that the gaming audience is ready for always-online devices.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2013/04/16/ubisoft-market-ready-for-always-online-serv/1

 

And what the hell would the worst publisher in existence know about this?

 

yeah cause thats going down well isnt it?

 

"I love always-online singleplayer gaming!"
- No one. Ever.

 

Ubisoft: keep telling yourself that.

 

Well, looks like city-boy has fairly reliable internet!

 

Just a quick question, How many of us here disconnect our internet connection for single player gaming?

 

blizz trail blazed the way , and sorted the issues they had - EA did there usual and messed it all up badly , then blamed everyone else.

 

That's not the point. What happens if your service has an outage? You're not allowed to play a game you purchased.

What about if you're on a laptop and have no connection at the time?

The problem isn't when we disconnect it ourselves manually; it's when the service has issues and stops you doing what you're doing, even though it has no bearing on what you are doing other than being an annoying system. Or there is no service at all, as per laptop.

 

I want to thank Ubisoft for their always-on DRM. Thanks Ubisoft.

They have changed they way I buy and enjoy my gaming. I used to have to wait and save up to buy the games I played, but then when I had an income I had the means to immediately sate my gaming needs on release.
But Ubisoft has taught me to deny myself the games I want to play, and this has helped me to regain my old skills of patience and simmering anticipation with other publishers, and the savouring of old classics rather than gorging on the shiny new baubles.

I rarely buy a game on release now, and will wait a while for the kinks to work themselves out. And I'm happy with this! Meanwhile, I am working through my back catalogue of unplayed Steam games, and just completed SiN: Emergence (what 13yo modelled those huge, bouncing boobs?). I just purchased System Shock 2 on GOG, and I've downloaded some mods for it. What do I need Ubisoft for?

Soon Far Cry 3 will be $5 on Steam/GMG/Other and I will have to decide if $5 is too much to pay to inflict myself with Uplay.

 

$5 is to much for Far Cry 3.

Even if it was free I would not touch it, since I have tried to play it after paying for it.

 

You only have to look at http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/13/4221398/xbox-live-outage-knocks-gamers-offline-netflix-other-apps-useless to see why always on is a bad idea.

 

You know what? I would not mind this online requirement if there was some kind of road map for the games to have the online need patched out once they felt the pirates had been stopped long enough. It is the thought that I can purchase something which I may well really enjoy and years later not be able to use when the servers have been switched off.

Yes I bought Sim City and suffered some of the connection issues but it was not a massive deal for me. I live in a rural area with a connection which is pretty horrendous and even that has not caused me problems yet.

 

If handeled the way Steam handles it* it's okay.
You play online unless you select "offline", and it works.

I can see there might be benefits to playing online (for some), but it shouldn't exclude the possibility to play offline

 

* puts hand up *

The internet goes off when it's not being used.

 

Here we go again. Let's just remind ourselves of something I bleated on and on about when D3 came out...

"Always-online" has absolutely ZERO benefit to the consumer and provides benefits ONLY to the publisher/manufacturer/developer.

Why are people so quick to defend the limitations imposed on us by publishers with the argument that it doesn't affect them personally so why should they care? If it doesn't affect you, then great, but it still doesn't offer you anything POSITIVE whilst, at the same time, negatively affecting others, so how can you argue that that's a good thing?

It's ridiculous. Single player gaming->always online->lots of people stop being able to play through no fault of their own.

Some people DO live in rural areas.
Not everybody lives in the UK/US.
Many people on deployment with the armed forces enjoy gaming.
Lots of people endure a long commute on a regular basis.

And 3G/4G dongles are not the answer.

We shouldn't need to be always online to play the single-player portion of the game, even if many of us are.

</rant>

 

Always on internet is one of the worst ideas I've heard.

It will limit the amount of people who are able to play games (e.g. people living in a rural area with an awfully slow or unreliable internet connection), the amount of people losing data because of outages will cause mass frustration (as it already has in Sim City) and what happens when you want to play a game somewhere where there is no internet?

Extremely stupid idea Ubisoft, get real.

 

Diablo 3 is an online game not really sure how playing it single player is getting the best out of it so thats a null argument.

Starcraft 2 is effectively online only ( was till blizzard made an offline version of which heart of swarm breaks again ) dont see anybody complaining about it.

Ive played mmos for 10 years + and never had any issues if you care that much about been online then you make sure you live in an area with good connectivety. ( kids who live at home with mam and dad are already online on Xbox or PS3 )

Yes theres been some issues Anno 2070 ( which if you want to play correctly needs an internet connection ) had some launch issues, Sim City did also, But not heard a whisper of complaints about Anno 2070 since launch.

People just hate EA enough to complain, Whilst D3 had so many players there was bound to be issues ( none that i personally saw)

Ive played the 4 biggest online games in the last few years and all have been fine for the most part.

Sim city Issues at launch now runs fine

SC2 Issues at launch with login server now runs fine

Diablo 3 issues at launch with login server now runs fine

World of warcraft game did not allow registrations for 18 hrs due to a major reg issue it was fixed i played the next day and got a months free time for it.

Future is here im connected 24/7 anyway with either phone or tablet.

 

Are you for real?

Not everybody has YOUR particular set of circumstances. Not everybody has YOUR particular set of tastes.

I live in the UK...I have 120Mb cable....my net connection is "always on".....but I still see the perspective of those who do not share my circumstances.

My father, for example, works in Malaysia, and has to live there 48 weeks of the year. He plays games as much as I do - 5/6 hours a day - except his connection is up and down like there's no tomorrow.

He plays Company of Heroes (amongst other games) daily - a game most would see as a multiplayer/skirmish RTS - and, thankfully, he can do so offline with the disc in. You might see that as pointless, but I can assure you he doesn't. When his net connection dies - which it does frequently - he can continue to play "offline". This is how it should be.

Should he simply move back to the UK to get a better connection? Perhaps he should give up his six-figure salary and live back over here just because the likes of Diablo 3 don't let him play the game uninterrupted.

Have a think about the wider world before you casually instruct people to "live in an area with good connectivity". If my ISP gives me erratic service and I can't get it sorted, do you suppose I should just sell my house (which is in negative equity, thanks to the recession) and just find somewhere else to live because a damn publisher can't live with me playing their game offline?

What nonsense. What you are suggesting is selfish and naive.

 

My reply is not really aimed at you, but using your post to rebut the "It doesn't bother me"/Adam Orth argument.

My situation illustrates MY position on always-on.
I live in a technologically advanced country near a major metropolis with a population >5million people. People in some parts of my country have 100mbps fibre connections, and talking about faster.
Can I get copper-wired Internet? Can I *$#@!
Can I get 3G/4G? Not any more, not since the dominant telecom provider mucked around with their tower network and the signal strength plummeted.

My "choice" is satellite (with the stupidly high prices and latencies and stupidly low data allowances, oh and the signal can drop out regularly with atmospheric changes) or move to a new house. I have lived at my current location since everyone (including me) was using dial-up to access the Internet - I don't want to have to move just because the same dominant telecom won't remove the pair gain set-up they installed 30 years ago, or upgrade copper of the same vintage in the storm-water drains (they call them "ducts", but I know better!). Great "choices".

I am lucky because by chance I found a small ISP that had a Wimax tower about 20km away, and although I'm not in their coverage area and the signal is "marginal", it is far better than satellite. It is faster and cheaper, the data is reasonably generous, and it is (for the most part) always-on. It suffers from atmospheric drop-outs - Wimax doesn't like moisture (or trees, or moist trees) so very high humidity, low clouds and heavy rain will cause the signal strength to drop too low to maintain a connection.
I can browse the internet quite fine, download large files quickly and Steam games in a few hours/overnight. I rarely notice the limitations of the connection.

What I can't do is stream video (360p) without halts to buffer the stream. For YouTube this is fine, but HD films? The latency is marginal for MP games. It is do-able but hit/miss and not really enjoyable. I'm not fussed because I don't really like MP games.

So, my always-on Internet connection isn't always-on. And I'm not alone. There are many others who, for various reasons, don't have an always-on connection, and despite our "connected culture" and advances getting ourselves even further "connected", aren't going to have that always-on connection any time soon. There are even some luddites [witches!! burn them!!] amongst us gamers and enthusiasts who don't WANT to be connected 24/7.
Personally, I would get a fibre connection to my home if I could, but there is no pagan god who will hook me up, I've already tried and wasted a perfectly good goat.

If game makers and console makers want to make always-on a requirement, go right ahead and good luck to them. Just don't expect me and others like me to buy your product if I can't use it. I don't think we are going to be an insignificant number to ignore.