Gaming

I wouldn't buy such game. "Would" because so far none of the games that interests me required constant connection. I don't play multiplayer games to begin with so it's easy to avoid.

My internet access is through metered connections, so I find it quite agrivating to be forced to burn precious cap space on a game that could totally be local only.

I absolutely refuse to buy any game that requires being online for single player. That is a line I will never cross.

I don't like it. I play with a Steam Deck from my bed and the Wi-Fi connection is pretty bad from there. I easily loose connection every five minutes.

That means I can't play any games that require constan online connection, which is a bummer.

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.

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.

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.

Always online has pretty much always been a terrible idea except for where it's actually required (MMOs)

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 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.

Very bad idea and I don't understand why it is becoming the norm. Let's say you want to play again Diablo 4 in a few years (probably because you will be taking care of your kid) but all the player base has disappeared. If Blizzard cuts the servers to save some money, you will not be able to play the game on an official instance, even if it is only single player. Let's say the servers won't shut down down, another issue remains. Users who want to play in public areas or when travelling won't be able to launch the game (rip steam deck users).

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?

If a game demands always online, I'll avoid it, period. These days I have no interest on stuff like that.

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.

definitely a turnoff for me.. years ago when I first discovered Diablo 2 on an old computer at a place I was house-sitting at, I had no internet whatsoever.. nothing
that game kept me sane in so many ways
eventually several months later I managed to leech some web access from an old construction yard or something behind the place, but that's a story for another time..

The games I play usually don't support online at all lol. So a game being only online is kinda a deal breaker for me lol.

I have accepted the fact that this would be the new normal since Diablo 3 and the infamous error 37. It was a problem back then when good internet is hard to come by. But at 2023, unless there's zero online elements in a particular game, I have no issue with always online requirement.

Good that we still have great titles from Nintendo eg. TotK

I dont like always online games, since I have had connection issues for a long time before I moved which made it almost impossible to play multiplayer games for me. And now my W-LAN card on my computer died without the option to use LAN. I am already glad that I can still access Denuvo "protected" games since those need to send some stuff to Denuvos sometimes.

I refuse to buy always-online games. Not being able to pause is just dumb (and probably could be fixed if Blizzard would still give a damn). But not being able to mod the game is a deal-breaker for me, an ARPG that can't be modded is not worth my time.

Nah. I don't have a reliable or constant connection. Constant online anything doesn't work.

I really dislike it, but it won't stop me from buying a game. I was recently without internet and went to play a game on my Steam Deck and was surprised to find a game I had been playing required access.

What bugs me most about it is that it seems like everything these days is tilted towards the companies. If a game doesn't require the internet, the only reason it's there is to collect data on what you're doing and maybe to help enforce DRM. It's bad enough that I can only rent games from Steam (although bless Valve for making gaming on Linux so good), now I can't even play the games I "own" if I don't have a pipe back to the company? Ugh.

Diablo 3 is always online and lets you pause in all single player modes. Always online isn't the issue - the issue is games that are multiplayer only, like Diablo 4.

Always online games really bug me. For someone like myself that goes out to sea for several weeks as part of my job, I won't have connection during those time periods thus I can't play the game I played.

Additionally, if the company removes the servers that the game connects to once the game has been out for whatever they determine to be "long enough" the game becomes unplayable

I haven't seen an upside for always online games only downsides. Totally understand that games with an online multi-player component need that internet connection but there is no reason, that I have seen, that are single player games or have single player components need always online connection.

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.

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

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.

I didn't mind it until I lost my internet connection, but I think I prefer it over bad Denuvo implementation that makes the game a stuttery mess.

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

Absolutely detest them. I still consistently play old games because they're a blast and make me remember when I was a kid. That won't happen for my kids with their games, as the servers will be long gone and close to zero companies are going to spend more time updating the game to not need a server. I'm an old man yelling at my lawn, but games went from trying to entertain to trying to suck every cent they can out of you.

One of my biggest enjoyments is hacking games up as well. You can learn about coding (set ammo to -1 - is it unlimited, 0, or game crashing). Sometimes it's fun to be a god after a stressful day. Sometimes my kids play with me and I don't want to have to tell them no, worry about them dying every couple seconds and getting frustrated, or having to drop it altogether.

I just want to buy a damn game and play it how it entertains me the most - not have to deal with server errors, not have to deal with 12 year olds screaming, not have to deal with people who have far more time than I do being 1000x better.

@Parellius
I despise them. I only buy them if I'm going to play online with friends but I know at some point if I want to play solo I'm going to have to get a "less connected" version of them...

Now if I only need the solo experience, well...

Another issue arises now that handheld PC gaming is getting more and more popular. Those games will definitely ignore a big part of their potential customer base, and I assume suffer the consequences

In case of Diablo IV in my opinion Blizzard has a good track record of keeping game servers online for years and years.

That being said, the game does have some weird server hopping mechanic that you can't turn off, meaning it seems to switch servers while you're playing, which isn't always as seamless as you'd hope it would be. Also, at least for me, it sometimes selects servers with >100ms latency, which is quite noticeable of course.

Never was a fan of the change. I grew up before internet was common place in many households. Only thing you had to worry about was if the game cartridge had too much dust lol.

I don't like it and try not to play games where it's a requirement. Especially in single player games.

Personally it's never effected me but it feels like a really dumb decision made by ignorant suits. The fact that pirates get a better product than paying customers is pretty sad.

I don’t love it, but I’ve found that it’s been less intrusive than I thought. Generally only feel it when the internet goes out. That said, I’ve got fairly good fiber internet, so I’m a bit privileged in this regard. We used to have absolutely horrendous rural internet and it sucked.

Doesn't matter to me one way or another, and it doesn't affect my purchasing decisions.

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

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