You cannot argue that there is a problem with Always-On DRM when the license agreement you agree to flat out says that you're just leasing the right to play the game. You also can't argue against it when you buy and play the game anyway. There have always been schemes to prevent piracy, and if you're going to say that this is any worse than in the old days when the game quizzed you on the manual, you're nuts. Lose the manual, lose the ability to play the game.
As for constant patching, I like to hang back and see what kind of patching scheme is going to be used. And if there's constantly new patches coming out, I avoid the game. It's not going to be worth the bugs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'
You cannot argue that there is a problem with Always-On DRM when the license agreement you agree to flat out says that you're just leasing the right to play the game. You also can't argue against it when you buy and play the game anyway. There have always been schemes to prevent piracy, and if you're going to say that this is any worse than in the old days when the game quizzed you on the manual, you're nuts. Lose the manual, lose the ability to play the game.
As for constant patching, I like to hang back and see what kind of patching scheme is going to be used. And if there's constantly new patches coming out, I avoid the game. It's not going to be worth the bugs.
My "Always-On DRM" aggravation does not really come from the producers intent to thwart piracy. Rather, it aggravates me specifically because I am now dependent on the company to play my game at all times. If their servers are down for any reason I cannot play. If for some reason I have no internet connection (i.e. mobile gaming as was mentioned earlier) I cannot play. If the company decides to stop supporting the game I cannot play. Those are the things that frustrate me about "Always-On DRM." I understand that I am leasing the right to play the game, but there is nothing that requires them to maintain the lease. That sucks . It makes me feel as if I have no control over a product I purchased. At least with the old methods of piracy prevention any loss of the game was simply on me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Mistakes- Perhaps your sole purpose in life is to serve as an example to others.
I'm mostly a console gamer so always on DRM doesn't effect me all that much. So I'm going to say on disc DLC. I've payed for something I'm not getting, which is bull****. I also hate day 1 dlc.
ONLINE DRM, as infinite_gamer said it detracts from the single player experience and also some companies ban your account if you want to use a trainer in single player. I abhor cheating in multiplayer and think anyone who cheats in MP should have their pc crushed but what we do in single player should be our choice.
There's also the issue of servers being down, if that happens you can't even play a game you have paid for.
Arggg oh god, I can't pick just one. They're all so incredibly annoying and frustrating to deal with, as well as unfair and unbalanced. But I think I'll go with the first one. I can deal with everything else, but that just takes the cake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... at night :3
Always-On DRM is the worst idea they ever had. It doesn't stop piracy, it just punishes the LEGIT gamers. I can't tell you how frustrating it is for me!
. It makes me feel as if I have no control over a product I purchased. At least with the old methods of piracy prevention any loss of the game was simply on me.
webworks, LLC
All Rights Reserved - 