Gaming

Singleplayer games have no reason to require an internet connection to be able to play the game.

If it's a strictly multiplayer game, fine.

If not, that's just DRM, and it should die in a fire.

If a single player game requires online connection im not buying it.

If it's single player games, there should be ZERO reasons to have it requiring online connectivity 24/7. No buy for me. There will be times where your internet goes offline for ISP related issues or Xbox Live or PSN experiencing server issues. How am I going to play those games?

There seem to be two Diablo IV games.

One is a single player or co-op offline RPG where you're running around killing monsters and collecting loot so that you personally can save the world. Seeing other players running around just breaks the illusion.

The other is some online multi-player thing where you can run around and team up with other people in the quest to min-max your build, where you pay stupid amounts of money to make your character look the same as all the other people who paid for the same skin.

I like the first game, have no interest in the second, and I resent where the mechanics designed for the second game interfere with the first.

I flat out refuse to buy games that require a constant internet connection. It's annoying for multiplayer games but the need for always online with a single player game is ridiculous.

I would never buy such games in the first place. If a singleplayer game doesn't have an offline mode I'm not interested.

It sucks, plain and simple. Single-player games should never require internet access, and if the game has a multiplayer component, it should be a separate mode that leaves the single-player mode working even when there is no internet connectivity.

It’s just basic fucking common sense… except that it conflicts with financial interests and greed.

My internet connection drops constantly because Cox is horrible at providing what I pay for so if a game has an always online DRM component it becomes unplayable frequently. I don’t like it for that reason, but I also don’t like it from a “the server will go offline at some point and then this is going to be unplayable forever after that” point of view.

I only play Destiny 2 (always online) and Civilization 5 and 6 (only online for multiplayer). If a game is a live game like Destiny or Fortnite then I can understand it but not having an offline mode in a game like Diablo seems really dumb.

It depends on the game. Like if it's an online only game, then of course that makes sense. But a single player game, or even a game with a single player mode requiring always online is and will always be dumb.

Diablo 4 not being designed for offline solo play as well (like D2 and I think even D3 was) is annoying though.

The always online is bad. The micro-transactions are worse. I'm tired of being told "But it's just cosmetic!" Yeah, well that used to come with the game too. "They need to be able to make more content!" Yeah, it's made over 666 million dollars. They can afford more content. "At least it's not..." That shouldn't exist either.

Games, and expansion packs. That's it. Day one MTX is insulting. "here's your game, pay to unlock more of it" should not be a thing we accept. At this point I half expect a back-slide to pay full price and then a sub to actually play the game. I can not wrap my head around why people defend it, I've stopped buying games with MTX entirely.

Diablo 2 resurrected is quite good, though. Nailed that one.

I fuckin hate it. Total bullshit

I like No Man's Sky take on this, that seamlessly shifts from offline to online. I can stop/resume it without an hitch on my Steam Deck, even in multiplayer zones.

With Diablo IV, I get disconnected when there's a light breeze.

Well, games that are inherently built for an online social presence, like an MMORPG, makes perfect sense to require being always online. World of Warcraft, Star Wars: The Old Republic come to mind.

Even though you can quest solo on those games, it doesn't make sense from a core-concept standpoint that you just walk around an empty world where there'd otherwise be players doing their own thing.

If it's a game that has little to nothing to do with online as a core part of its concept (like a single-player campaign where you can't have any sort of online co-op), then yeah that seems rather silly.

I have a friend who lives in a dry cabin in Alaska. Only internet is a limited mobile hotspot. Games like Diablo 4 are pretty much off limits.

I understand that some games can really benefit from being always online, but I think it's important for games that can be played solo to have the offline option. The more choice the consumer has, the better.

If it’s a singleplayer then no, I don’t think there are any reasons to have singleplayers to be always online. It can have online features but shouldn’t be a requirement

it requires an always online connection even though I’m essentially playing it as a single player game.

That is awful. What are their reasons for that?

I think it might be a good anti-piracy measure. But it's really sad for the accessibility of these games as a whole, especially when it is possible to play the game without any online features.

I'm a big fan of the Steam Deck and Nintendo Switch ability to simply turn into sleep mode, which allows me to pause very easily games. But I guess that's not possible with online games :/

If the game actually does something useful with that connection, I don´t have a problem with it. Examples:

• MSFS does the processing of the terrain and it´s details off site. Also things like live weather and traffic obviously need a connection.
• Souls games allow you to leave messages and read messages from other players. Also you can help or attack other players in their game, which is super useful and fun.

However, sometimes the always on is just a way for the devs to battle piracy. In which case its hurting the actual gaming experience.

I´m not familiar with Diablo 4 to be honest. So, in my understanding, the fact that it need an internet connection alone can´t be the reason for not being able to pause the game, right? There must be some real time interaction going on between your "world" and the worlds of others.

EDIT: Hm, I read up on it for a second and it seems like there is a portal that you can use to teleport to a safe place? A town? Supposedly you can even do that from within a dungeon AND even teleport back to the same place?

Definite no from me. Applies to all apps, really: there should always be an offline mode unless always-on is absolutely required (i.e., accessing a website/API is the app's sole purpose).

This is a big problem for me with mobile games, since developers seem to have forgotten that cell service is not universal, capable of failure, and often metered.

Of course, there are still annoying edge cases. A bunch of apps I have don't strictly require always-on connection, but they have a check-in at startup. They skip the check if you have no service at all, but if you have service without data, they just sit there without timing out.

Hate it as I have a Steam Deck so I just wouldn’t play it if it needed an online connection as I play a lot when travelling.

Happened when I was away with some mates and we tried to play FIFA which needed an initial online connection to Origin. Was infuriating trying to get it work with bad mobile connection

I have avoided the Hitman series because of their always online requirement. One day I loaded it up only to be told I couldn't play their single player game because their servers were down for maintenance.

I'm not paying $60 for a single player game that I won't be able to play when the company has server issues.

If a game has a single player mode without features that require internet, and isn't accessible without wifi, thats just lazy design imo.

How am I supposed to play an always online video game on the plane

I hate it I try to always avoid always online drm but sometimes it's really impossible, i'm gonna be honest and say that i got some issue with my steamdeck for them. (f u ubisoft btw) So if i find that a singleplayer game needs an always online drm i just don't buy it.

In my opinion all games that can be played solo should have an offline mode. Personally I have an excellent internet connection but I hate having to depend on servers to be able to play the game that I bought.

The thing about always online is that the servers often crap out, especially during launch or during major patches. That just annoys the hell out of me.

Last month, construction workers did something in our street. I didn't have Landline Internet for a whole week. Always Online is pretty horrible for single player games.

I don't like always online games.
Some years ago a friend asked me to play Diablo 3 together, so I bought it and tried it in singleplayer to get familiar with it, since that was the first time playing a Diablo game.
I got very hard lag - in a singleplayer session and lost the connection to the server several times.
It was such an awful experience that I couldn't bring myself to play it online anymore.

Always a bit of a turn off for me. Ross (guy that did Gordon's mind and game dungeon) has a pretty good series of videos about why online only games are bad because they can be killed. He really hates the idea of killing games, and I agree with him.

Not only can the game get killed, however, but it can be changed fundamentally in a bad way. Balance can be tweaked for the worse etc. And unlike single player games you can't revert back to a previous version.

I also hate that LAN play has been pretty much stripped from the PC game landscape. LAN parties during college were the shit.

I hate that "Games as a Service" are preventing the longevity of games. I worry about all of the incredible stories and experiences that these games provide being very quickly lost to time.

Honestly? I used to not care. I usually have internet connectivity and have at least one backup method of getting online.

But now my father is psuedo-homeless and there's so many games he's missed out on because his Van/RV didn't get enough cell signal to work.

After that I understood the problem in a far deeper way.

Games were accessible to me as a kid, not because I could afford them, but because I could just pop in my neighbors CD (and enter their CD key if needed) and be off to the races! If I were to grow up poor now, it would be miserable.

Always-online "single player" games, huge downloads, and if you happen to avoid all that you STILL need to check in online occassionally to use your own Steam Library.

I mean, if 15 year old me existed today, I'd still be pirating things but it would be through a network of friends with Blu-ray burners and good internet connections.

These days, I try to buy on GOG only, and only their non-DRM titles. Then I can throw them onto a samsung t5 and sneaker net it to my dad without worrying if Steam/Origin/Blizzard/Epic will get in the way.

An always online requirement is just another form of DRM. If a game has DRM, I simply don't buy it.

In the case of Diablo IV, I really think it needs to do more to earn its always online status. I’m hoping that future updates and things will bring more MMO-like features as I think it would be a perfect fit

Concerning gaming with a newborn, you should also look for games that you can play with one hand, so you can hold the baby with the other. Europa Universalis 4 is a great game if you've got a kid who will only fall sleep while being held.