Khyron wrote:Honestly, I wouldn't care to guess as to the architectural reasons why a hypothetical game might require authentication for a single player or multiplayer session.
Is the reason you don't care to guess because you don't want to admit that developers do things like this as a way to implement DRM? I'm not talking about "some hypothetical game here" I made examples of SimCity, Starcraft 2, and Factorio.
Khyron wrote:They might have done it to ensure people paid for the service (aka DRM). They might have done it to allow access to your personal data (like a server-side savegame, credit balance from microtransactions, etc.) They might have designed their system to be server-side architecture to prevent or manage item duping or other exploits. They might do it for match making (player skill). Most likely it's a combination of factors.
Right, for games like Diablo 2, alot of what you said is true about duping. For a game like world of tanks, the microtransaction part is true. Which of the reasons on that list do you think applies to factorio's requirement for a login to get updates? The only one that I think makes sense is the DRM.
Khyron wrote:What I mean by [citation needed] is that i believe you are making an unsubstantiated claim. Your choice of words makes it read as if what you are stating is fact, rather than personal opinion. If it's personal opinion you should change your wording to read "... to me, DRM means" or "...my understanding of DRM is...". If you believe it is fact, then give a citation. In this context, a citation is a link to some other person's definition or a quotation. Choose your citations wisely. A link to "some guy's" blog is not a good citation. A good citation would be to an industry recognised body, like the EFF, or a standards body, like the ITU or IEEE. You should choose a citation that is appropriate for the subject matter. For example, you wouldn't choose a sugar farmers union to make a citation about the dietary requirements of children.
Do you really think I base my definition of DRM on one single instance of "some guy's blog" or can you admit that the largest and most common game review and blog sites ALL refer to video game DRM as the forced login to allow the play of multiplayer or singleplayer? Were you not reading the video game news when Starcraft 2 came out? It wasn't on someguy's blog, it was on EVERY video game news and review site the outrage over single player requiring an internet connection and the inability to play over a LAN. Were you in amish country when the controversy came out about SimCity's DRM? I didn't make these issues up, and I didn't find some isolated incident of outrage off of some single crackpot's blog. These are the common and agreed upon definitions of DRM in the world of gaming whether you care to google around for citation or not.
I don't know if you are being intentionally difficult just for the sake of your argument, or if you actually don't spend alot of time reading about gaming news and issues. I think I may be too trusting to assume you are simply ignorant of the long history of DRM controversy in the gaming sphere. A part of me thinks you know exactly what I'm talking about, but maybe thats not a fair assumption.
Khyron wrote:No, you misunderstand. I do acknowledge Blizzard and EA chose to implement an "always-online" DRM for Starcraft and SimCity (although I think that's no longer the case with SimCity?). Where I think you're somewhat confused is that just because there's an authentication mechanism doesn't necessarily mean it was created for DRM purposes. In general, I think DRM is annoying because it is usually implemented in a ham-fisted way.
Well, I really don't think that the majority of news and review blogs, PC gamer magazine, and all other forms of media that ASSUME this DRM was ONLY for the purposes of DRM are some sort of conspiracy theorists. You make the very weird and wild assumption that these implementations are NOT for DRM purposes, and I think you make this assumption only for the sake of argument, but I suppose you could just be burying your head in the sand and giving the developers of video games more benefit of the doubt that any other person in the world ever has. Possible, but quite unlikely.
Khyron wrote:Finally, I'll point out that you have rather arbitrarily chosen that the login method hampers your ability to update the game. What about the fact that you require internet access to download the updates? Shouldn't the developers be obliged to send you disks in the post? But that would require you to go to your mail box to collect the disks. So shouldn't they come to your house and install the updates for you? But that would require you to answer the door and let them in.
Well now you are just being ridiculous, there is something called being reasonable. You are not being reasonable to demand home delivery and all that other sillyness, you are attacking and pointing fun at an argument that for one, I did not ever even attempt to make, and two is completely absurd. All of this malformed logic is quickly SHUT DOWN by the fact that they deliver updates online already, and in the past did not require a login.
Khyron wrote: My point is that, once again, it is at the discretion of the developers to decide what method their company is able to distribute updates. If you don't like it, you can seek a refund. But I'm sure that's also at their discretion.
Ah, that old texas adage, "If you dont like it, well you can just just GET OUT"
Another option would be to fight for; and advocate for change and improvement, but your technique of demanding a refund every time you are dissatisfied is equally as valid, but you will not dissuade me from playing factorio, or standing against unnecessary and unhelpful DRM.
I don't ever intend to tell the devs what to do with their product or company, but I will point out I feel as though I'm being subjected to extra security measures that don't actually prevent the pirates from doing anything. And I don't find it unreasonable to level this complaint without demanding a refund like a petulant child.