The curse of always-online

The internet. A wondrous tool. One that allows people to connect with each other from all over the world. It has opened up avenues in gaming that were previously restricted to garage LAN parties.

But it has lead to something that no one expected, well, not initially anyway. Always on DRM. Cleverly hidden behind the excuse of "social integration"


So, something that has become a thing as of late has been always-on connectivity with games. Publishers are pushing harder and harder for developers to develop their games with online interactions and multiplayer. It's the current "big thing" in gaming to have and has even lead to the death (very slowly over the years) of Local LAN play.

The Dark Side of Always online

The most recent games that spring to mind are DiabloIII and SimCity. Both of these games have taken to perma-online options and both have suffered heavily under gamer complaints. With the infamous error 37 still looming fresh in people's minds I think they all suffered relapses when the SimCity servers were down in the first few days of play. While SimCity's issues were not as extensive as was with DiabloIII, I think people were perhaps a tad more angry than they would have been had DIII not set the stage. I do not blame them however.

The main problem with always on connectivity is simply that it is yet another hurdle for legitimate gamers to deal with on a daily basis. Gamers are already faced with many varying issues on a daily basis. From bad day 1 launches with buggy games that should never have made it past QA all the way through to authentication servers buckling under the strain of the rush of consumers trying to activate their latest purchase of Modern-Battlefield-Simulation Warrior 3000.
It's a never ending battle and now we have MMO style server issues to deal with on a daily basis.
Servers going offline, maintenance, server hacks in our decidedly single player games. It's allowed all the bad things of MMO's to now infect our single player games. It just feels kind of like a slap in the face.

But all that aside. The biggest concern I have is just how much these companies are throwing away in revenue just to simply have an always on connection.

When you have a game that's offline and only needs an online activation once that is fantastic. But publishers are terrified of the ever sinister digital pirate. They feel that pirates cost them millions in sales due to their pirating ways and so want to try stop this behaviour. Their current answer is naturally the always on connection.

However if you look at your sales potential from just a logical perspective you should see that always-on will most likely do more damage than any pirate:

Let's look at sales potential
Always Online games:

1) No Internet Gamer: NO SALE - This gamer cannot purchase the game as it would be pointless. They would be wasting their money. They may turn to piracy (if possible to crack) simply so they can enjoy the game they so badly wanted and would have bought.

2) Bad Internet Connectivity Gamer: POTENTIAL LOST SALE - This gamer may risk it. Perhaps the Always on reliance isn't too bad. However, if they fail to enjoy the product or use it they will most likely return it and never purchase a game from that publisher again. So no only have the developers lost any future sales from this gamer but their reputation has been damaged.

3) Good Connectivity but against DRM: NO SALE - This crowd won't purchase a game with such blatant DRM. They will try boycott the product. Post hateful things on the internet and in general try to vote you worst company ever. The damage this does to one's business image is something to be taken seriously.

4)  Good Connectivity and not too worried about DRM: POTENTIAL SALE - Well, our first possible sale. These guys can afford internet and aren't too worried as long as the product works. However there is huge potential for disappointing and having these people turn away from a developer if the game is shoddy. I am thinking specifically of the DiabloIII and SimCity launch issues here. I myself fall in this group and I will never support Blizzard again as long as they launch anything with always-on requirements.

5) The Fan with Internet: SALE - This is the only 100% sure sale here. The gamer who doesn't care what the game is like or what hurdles they need to jump. They will get the game and they most likely will never turn away from a developer due to some form of loyalty. Not a bad thing. But they are the only reason publishers seem to turn a blind eye on the rest of the world moaning about always on DRM.

So here we see only 2 sales made out of 5 due to the restrictions always on DRM provides. Not exactly business friendly IMHO

Now let's look on the flipside.
Offline games with only a once off online activation required.

1) No Internet Gamer: POTENTIAL SALE - He/She can always buy the game and activate it at a friends house and then enjoy it offline anytime they please.

2) Bad Internet Connectivity Gamer: : SALE - Even though this gamer has bad internet connectivity they can still purchase the game and enjoy. They just need to get past the authentication side and they can carry on.


3) Good Connectivity but against DRM: SALE - This crowd will be only too happy to support a developer/publisher who isn't trying to make life difficult.

4)  Good Connectivity and not too worried about DRM: SALE - Well, no stretch of imagination here. The game will sell in this catagory.

5) The Fan: SALE - Naturally a sale regardless of game requirements.

So that's 4 definite sales out 5 with the last 1/5 being a potential sale. Much better right?

Look yes, there is the 6th group, pirates, who never will purchase a game. No matter what. Whether it's entitlement or financial restrictions, these guys never will buy the game. Whether you protect it from them or not. That's why fighting game piracy in such a manner is pointless. It doesn't make them buy the game. It only prevents them from playing it and even that won't deter them. I'm not saying piracy is ok. I am just pointing out that publishers hurt their customer base more than they do the pirates of their games.

I am no expert of course. I don't know the exact figures or anything. But using a bit of logic one can see that publishers are cutting out a huge potential market with always online. In an industry who's development costs are skyrocketing, can they really afford to deny even a single sale?

This is why publishers need microtransactions. They need to augment their sales because they know that they are cutting out such a huge base of gamers. They are not oblivious to what is happening. They simply don't care.

And you know what's the sad part? It's mostly not the developers themselves who chose this model. It's the publishers who demand such things. So while the developers get slandered for making such aweful DRM, it's the publishers who still roll around in the money while the developers names get dragged through the mud. Bloody suits!

Well, that's my view on it all anyway. There's nothing we can do about it. It's here to stay and as Adam Orth said we will just have to deal with it.

Not that I want to though :(