Its not that bad...

[Macca42]

Gday gents,

I hope that some of you may recall a game called Battleforge that was released last year? It seems strange to me that even though it contains the exact same type of "DRM" no one seemed to comment on it. Thats because the damn game is designed for multiplayer, and just like battleforge, in C&C4 singleplayer is more of an afterthougtht, designed to help people hone their skills for multiplayer than to run through solo. Sure this method may have a bit to do with copy protection, but wouldnt it be possible that these features were innocently added by the designers, who have now had the extreme dis-fortune of having their game released amongst the Ubisoft nightmare.

Now, i hate DRM more than most, the idea of punishing the people that actually buy a game is absolute marketing suicide, I think we are going to harsh on a game that for all intents, didn't mean any harm in it.

If anyone has played Battleforge, could you agree or disagree on these points?

Cheers,

-Macca

[MILLANDSON]

I haven't played Battleforge, but I 100% agree.

[krotch]

It's probably no one even cared about the game. I didn't hear about it, til you just mentioned it. Now when you slap this type of DRM on a AAA title, it'll get noticed.

[MILLANDSON]

Despite it not really being DRM. It has persistent online statistics, just like other EA games like the Battlefield series. C&C4 has the same sort of online system as the Battlefield series. Yet, the Battlefield series isn't full of "OMG DRM" threads.

If people stepped back and realised that this is a multiplayer-first game, then they would (if at all reasonable) realise why they went this way with the game log-in system.

[Runt]

I think the main reason, is because it's a C&C game. C&C games have been singleplayer first and foremost, with the multiplayer as an added bonus. The games were a means to tell the story. For C&C4 to be 'multiplayer first, singleplayer's just an afterthought' is rather counter to what C&C was. While I'm one of those who haven't been terribly impressed with any C&C game since Tiberian Sun (except Generals), I'm very surprised with EA's decision to basically throw out the story telling for C&C4.

Battlefield on the otherhand, has always been a game with multiplayer at the forefront, with a diminishing singleplayer capability since the early games. But still, it's something people expect. Battlefield was never to tell a story, just to get in and shoot things.

Sure this method may have a bit to do with copy protection, but wouldnt it be possible that these features were innocently added by the designers, who have now had the extreme dis-fortune of having their game released amongst the Ubisoft nightmare.
A feature where if you're no longer connected to the servers for whatever reason, you're going to have to restart the mission at best? That feature? I think the developer would have to be a sadist to 'innocently' add that :P But yes, the idea of persistent stats might have started as an innocent idea, but more likely, I'd say it was slapped on to help ease the shoving of the DRM down our throats.

And if "you must be connected to us, at ALL times" isn't really DRM, I don't know what is. Other games that require log-ins don't require a constant connection to their servers. Same with stat keeping, for singleplayer, they'll usually just upload your stats next time you log in. For multiplayer, well you're already online anyway, so that's nothing new. And still doesn't require a constant internet connection that screws you over if it drops out for even a moment.

[MILLANDSON]

Other games that require log-ins don't require a constant connection to their servers. Same with stat keeping, for singleplayer, they'll usually just upload your stats next time you log in. For multiplayer, well you're already online anyway, so that's nothing new. And still doesn't require a constant internet connection that screws you over if it drops out for even a moment.

Do you really want people to give you the long list of games that prove you wrong in your first statement?

Such as Battlefield, every MMO, things like that? They all require you to be in contact with their servers the entire time you are logged in.

As for "SP stats update when you next log in", when the levelling system is intrinsic to the multiplayer, they can't rely on people not modding their SP files to allow them access to level 20 stuff when they next log in. Sadly, people have proven they can't be trusted not to cheat with things like that too.

[Sylver697]

Gonna have to butt in here and say that while the DRM works, it's a little too sensitive.

I live in Australia (land of the ♥♥♥♥ty internet), the connection I'm on skips a beat every now and then, for Source engine games (TF2, CS:S, ect) this manifests as a little glitch in my fps for a second at most, nothing too serious, and the game is back to normal.

In C&C4, every time this happens I get disconnected from the DRM server and have to restart the match/game so that I can log in again. I can understand having strict DRM for whatever reason, but at least create (modify?) a DRM system that has a slight tolerance for this sort of thing. It's frustrating being kicked from your game every half hour-ish.

This game is unplayable for me.

[krotch]

Despite it not really being DRM. It has persistent online statistics, just like other EA games like the Battlefield series. C&C4 has the same sort of online system as the Battlefield series. Yet, the Battlefield series isn't full of "OMG DRM" threads.

If people stepped back and realised that this is a multiplayer-first game, then they would (if at all reasonable) realise why they went this way with the game log-in system.

Maybe cause the Battlefield series allowed you to play offline, even if it's mostly geared for online.

You also might want to look up what DRM means. This is hardly "not really being DRM." It is DRM.

Do you really want people to give you the long list of games that prove you wrong in your first statement?

Such as Battlefield, every MMO, things like that? They all require you to be in contact with their servers the entire time you are logged in.

I play Aion. A burp in my connection doesn't cause a disconnect. Just some real nasty lag spike, then on I go. Playing Dragon Age right now. Have a login, but no constant connection needed. It simply uploads my stats at specific save points in the game.

As for "SP stats update when you next log in", when the levelling system is intrinsic to the multiplayer, they can't rely on people not modding their SP files to allow them access to level 20 stuff when they next log in. Sadly, people have proven they can't be trusted not to cheat with things like that too.

And oddly enough, they didn't seem to care all that much with games like Battlefield 2.

[MILLANDSON]

And oddly enough, they didn't seem to care all that much with games like Battlefield 2.

Because the single-player stats in no way relate to the multiplayer aspect. You get no XP or anything for playing single player.

In CnC4, you do, they're all linked, and if you allowed people to play SP without being connected to their servers, you'd have people at level 20 because they modded their files and cheated.

If people have proven they can't be trusted not to try to get around the system, I don't see why developers/publishers should try to trust them and get bitten again.

[krotch]

I remember it being linked to the guns that unlock. At least, I think. It's been a long time since I last played BF2.

Either way, exactly why did they need to be linked at all? Or even have sp stats?

[MILLANDSON]

I remember it being linked to the guns that unlock. At least, I think. It's been a long time since I last played BF2.


Nope, if you weren't on multiplayer, your wins/kills/etc didn't count towards your stats, and didn't get you new weapons. If you weren't logged in (which required a constant connection to their servers), you couldn't use the guns you'd gotten in multiplayer in the single-player.