Op Ed

GOG.com’s Trevor Longino - Diablo III style DRM could make us ‘lose a chunk of gaming history.”
Games like Diablo III with bespoke constantly online DRM could be lost to gaming culture at large if for any reason the games publisher or developer stops supporting that infrastructure. So when you lose that online connection, you lose a chunk of gaming history.

View : : :
34.
 
Re: Op Ed
May 28, 2012, 23:05
34.
Re: Op Ed May 28, 2012, 23:05
May 28, 2012, 23:05
 
Jerykk wrote on May 28, 2012, 22:33:

True, but that's assuming that this becomes a standard practice. Diablo 3 got away with it because it's Diablo 3. Very few other brands hold such strength in the PC market. Ubisoft tried it with multiple brands and utterly failed, causing them to eventually revoke the online-only requirement. I'd be surprised if any non-Blizzard game could get away with the same DRM scheme, especially after the issues that people encountered (and are still encountering) since D3's launch.

Diablo 3 got away with it not because it was Diablo 3. It's because "it isn't DRM, its a social function". The thing that Ubisoft didn't try.

Or in another way. Its like Steam. "Its not DRM, its a all-in-one patch-updater, trophy system, in-game web browser and friend service." Its all in how you sell it.
*automatically refuses to place horse heads in anyone's bed*
Avatar 56087
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
2.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
16.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
17.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
18.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
   Re: Op Ed
19.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
    Re: Op Ed
20.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
    Re: Op Ed
24.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
     Re: Op Ed
26.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
      Re: Op Ed
27.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
       Re: Op Ed
29.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
   Re: Op Ed
3.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
4.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
7.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
21.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
5.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
6.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
9.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
22.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
23.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
25.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
   Re: Op Ed
28.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
    Re: Op Ed
30.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
     Re: Op Ed
31.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
      Re: Op Ed
32.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
       Re: Op Ed
33.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
        Re: Op Ed
 34.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
       Re: Op Ed
35.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
        Re: Op Ed
36.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
         Re: Op Ed
38.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
        Re: Op Ed
39.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
         Re: Op Ed
40.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
          Re: Op Ed
41.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
           Re: Op Ed
43.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
            Re: Op Ed
44.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
             Re: Op Ed
47.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
              Re: Op Ed
42.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
         Re: Op Ed
8.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
10.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
11.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
12.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
   Re: Op Ed
13.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
    Re: Op Ed
14.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
     Re: Op Ed
15.
May 28, 2012May 28 2012
     Re: Op Ed
37.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
45.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
46.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
48.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
49.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
50.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
54.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
   Re: Op Ed
55.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
    Re: Op Ed
51.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
52.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012
53.
May 29, 2012May 29 2012