I think you're misreading a lot of intention there. I'm not saying "If StingingVelvet is happy to have to activate online then StingingVelvet should also be happy with online only games". I'm saying - many times us DRM-free advocates have heard the line "You guys realise you're a niche, right? That most people who don't disconnect their Internet connections don't even notice?" And as much as we don't want to believe it, they are right that the mainstream 'casual' market in general has become 'hooked' with online dependencies.

Activision's "new direction" is just the 'evolutionary' extension to that. You said "For the vast majority of people the user experience is all that matters...". As mentioned though, the real litmus-test for CoD BOCW (do the 'vast majority' really care or do we just want to believe that they should?...) is the number of people who bought it and didn't refund / didn't buy it and were vocal about why. And given the $678 million profit made in its first 6 weeks, the most people who didn't care that it was online-only in actual practise isn't all that different to the most people who didn't care it wasn't DRM-Free.

It's just an example of the bar / threshold being lowered as is the need to give your personal phone number to Activision to play Richochet (anti-cheat) protected games. Even though SP CoD games may not use it, the tone / threshold for the franchise in general is lowered every time the bulk of the community is either apathetic towards this stuff or even openly cheers it on. In fact another potential issue is "bait & switches", ie, invasive anti-cheat to be patched into SP titles years later forcing the need for always-online even in games that weren't launched as such. "I’ve been hearing rumors of an ACTUAL anti-cheat that’s in the works for BlackOpsColdWar. Here’s to hoping it works, and that it comes to fruition upon release" Now read the comments underneath "Great news! What I love to hear!" The CoD franchise in general definitely has a different 'audience' vs say Deus Ex or Dusk and I suspect those like yourself who play SP titles in an MP dominated franchise are going to face even greater future uphill struggles when "the vast majority" of CoD gamers are actually cheering that always-online stuff on.

I agree 100%. Given how much the industry has changed over the past decade, having 'faith' that it might work 100% offline is no substitute for testing that it actually does. When nVidia dropped W7 support they simultaneously dropped non-UWP drivers for W10 and for 1-2 early releases they excluded the nVidia Control Panel from the nVidia driver and required it to be downloaded from the MS Store. Fortunately they reversed that decision and re-included it with the UWP drivers (probably because it would have made nVidia cards useless on LTSC which has no MS Store). One example of "most people (with a backed up affected driver version) would have had no idea a 100% offline reinstall wouldn't work properly if they didn't actually test it offline".

And this is exactly why I don't Day 1 stuff anymore, if we're getting a DRM'd version here on PC. From Day 1 problems of performance issues, high system requirements on new games, poor optimization, client-app required to play, online activation per system/day/whatever, always-online requirements, Denuvo anti-tamper/DRM junk, game needs patches galore behind it to fix all kinds of issues, any unnecessary stuff for single-player portions of games, and anything else you can think of that can cause potential problems - well, why should I really spend so-called "game-buying" money for $40-70+ on a new title ASAP? [shrug]

Naw, I just "buy" - and yes, I use that term loosely, given how many games got so much DRM nonsense tied to them - on the cheap and buy in bundles. And if I love the game and it hits GOG - sure, maybe I'll re-buy when it's dirt-cheap, if I find it worth replaying.

They treat 'em like rentals and throw-aways...so I guess when they don't take the DRM shackles off then I should too (treat 'em like rentals and throwaways too), right? [shrug]

My retail disc copy of Tabula Rasa, that would make for a nice soda coaster, you know? [shrug] And yeah, dev's and pub's often wonder why I don't toss money at MMO's and always-online games - like many of them even last. And it's not like they get re-worked to work offline and/or get bot support so you can run around the game offline with AI/bots either.

Mad Max on GOG & Origin doesn't have Denuvo, yet Steam-version for Windows still does. Vampyr on Epic doesn't have DRM, yet Steam-version does.

I don't replay a lot of games myself - but I still like to fire up single-player games, to see if they boot or if I can try to get into them again.

Classic stuff like Deus Ex and Vampire: Bloodlines - yep, those get replays here and there. Own Deus Ex 1 on disc and Steam; and have VTMB on disc and also on GOG.

I really wish Activision would sell their COD Single-Player campaigns here on GOG and it'd work all offline - but, I guess I can dream, right? [shrug]

It's not like Activision will ever reach COD4: Modern Warfare 2007 heights for their Single Player ever again anyways. [shrug] They lost 1st rate & S-Tier Old-School Infinity War (since many of them left and fled w/ West and Zampella to Respawn, after crap went down w/ MW2 2009) to 2nd rate A-to-C Tier Treyarch and Sledgehammer & others anyways. [shrug]

Side note - Titanfall 2 is amazing from Respawn; that campaign's awesome.

Btw, I don't talking about Acrivision going perma online because I simply didn't know. They haven't released a game I am interested in for over 10 years.

You think I don't understand what you're saying but I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's silly. Not every disagreement is rooted in someone's ignorance.

While games as a service and being very online all the time are very accurate expectations today, that's still not the same as a singleplayer game literally closing to the menu if you have a brief blip in internet coverage. You can talk to me all day long about how they're rooted in the same philosophy... and they are!... but it doesn't change for one second that the end user experience there is drastically different. Hence why when it's used for a real singleplayer game... Assassin's Creed 2, Crash Badicoot, the Xbox One fiasco... people complain enough to get things changed.

The old days of playing COD Campaigns offline are over.

This, I've always thought it was so funny how clearly superior one of the studios releases was over the others. Treyarch should have stayed with the Spider-Man franchise for sure.

What AB2012 was saying is what's happening though. Many CoD gamers (other than yourself) who didn't want always-online games due to DRM in previous years, now really do *WANT* always online connections in new games today due to anti-cheat stuff (even for multi-player modes in mostly single-player games). And reading various gaming forums, tech forums, Youtube comments on videos about cheating, etc, they sadly do. In large numbers. It's why I lost all interest in modern multi-player too.

The games of today, tomorrow, 2025, etc, are nothing like AC2 where "pushback" was possible because the gamers that now support it outnumber those like yourself who don't. Look at Valorant's anti-cheat (Vanguard). Literal "Son Of Sony Rootkit" stuff that goes one step further in blocking the game from starting if there's no TPM module / Secureboot isn't enabled. Did gamers push-back? Nope. They sat there clapping and making seal noises openly welcoming it "because cheaters r ruining muh experience". You're right that once upon a time there would be a bulwark against this stuff, but today's "PC Master Race" has actually turned into something quite pitiful compared to what it used to be...

Edit: I'll even go as far to say once you've stuffed a game full of 3-4x layers of DRM (inc Denuvo), then stuffed your Windows Kernel with half a dozen anti-cheat rootkit drivers (Vanguard, Richochet, EAC, BattlEye, VAC, nProtect GameGuard, Tencent Anti-Cheat Expert, Arbiter, Xigncode, etc) each one rifling through your files, randomly sending back screenshots of your desktop, I view the resulting "PCMR AAA experience" as now massively inferior to simply buying a console just for AAA's, which at least have the decency to keep all that junk within their own walled garden without affecting your computer. In fact whilst I dislike game streaming, I'd even rather do that than install any of the newest hostile anti-cheat stuff.

Pro-tip - Never ALT-Tab out from a game with Anti-Cheat kernel services running and log into your bank account whilst the game is running in the background. It is absolutely possible that your login name, account number, etc, will be screen-shotted / keylogged, uploaded and even shared with 3rd parties. And that's assuming the anti-cheat is 'friendly' enough to shut down when the game does (some don't and act like literal virus-grade kernel rootkits with active keyloggers even when the game isn't running). Quite honestly, the PCMR crowd needs their heads checked for ever letting things get this far let alone cheering it on just to play a damn game. Between this and the absurd ongoing GPU price gouging, If I were still into AAA gaming, I would have bought an XBox X and kept the PC just for Indie's / old games. Thankfully I stepped outside that bubble before the crazies took over.

Multiplayer is a completely different conversation, and I said myself in this thread that the new CoD games get away with it because they're so multiplayer focused while Crash Bandicoot is not.

There was an article the other day about people not caring that companies are blocking tiktok, they just shrug and open it on their personal devices anyway. One of the response was they didn't see the difference between tiktok and facebook (there is a massive difference) and also they didn't have any money anyway so nothing to worry about (hello, people without money are the ones they are interested in anyone that does their yearly cyber training knows this). People are too idiotic and businesses too greedy to make good decisions and the free market isn't free, regulation is the key.

Then I suspect you already know the answer to your original question (Q. "Where's the outrage for single-player Activision CoD games needing an always-online connection?") is A. "Everyone can already see the war is already lost for CoD games in 2023..."

I just read the Steam reviews for that page and there are more complaints about crashing and bad optimization than "I refunded because it's always online". The first review that said "always online for singleplayer. why?" was flooded with CoD fanboy troll comments like "you dont pay your internet bill? lmao", "welcome to 2023 Bro, Get over it nothing will ever be the same as 10 years ago or whatever", "imagine having a gaming pc and no constant internet access, what a weird house you live in lmao", "bro is from the us and complaining about always online holy f*** who cares if you cant afford your internet dont play games get a job niggaaa".

^ There comes a point where you have to "pick your battles" and write off lost causes. And the "lost cause" isn't that the game is always online, it's the reaction of the CoD (and Steam) audience who A. clearly want it to be that way and B. talk like 13yo Youtube Edgelord's going through puberty... As much as you like the games, you probably need to admit to yourself you're playing the "right" franchise a decade too late to expect any positive support from fellow CoD players in face of the above.

I really wish modern COD's would split their single-player campaigns as separate games entirely with different EXE's.

You know, like how UT games (MP-focused) and Unreal 2 (SP game) were separate games entirely.

And the funny part about the Internet conversation is this: things are now getting more mobile, gaming-wise - especially w/ Steam Decks and powerful gaming laptops.

Gamers might have portable laptops and/or devices like Steam Deck, where they're in situations where they'll have No Internet, even if it's for a short time period.

If everybody stays on the "how do you not have Internet access" train - then, how's that going to work if you say want to play Modern COD Single Player Campaign offline? That's right, you'll basically have to go play something else - and likely, with a lot of these newer games like Redfall going always-online - it's gonna be something older...like a GOG Game from here; unprotected EXE game from Steam or Epic; and/or something very old from an era where single-player games worked offline no problem-o, when you've gone somewhere w/ no Internet access or poor access to the Net.

Yes, I already said that above as well. I didn't know Activision removed it from Crash after backlash until after I posted. That changes the dynamic.

It is a shame though as Call of Duty can be fun in singleplayer when in the right mood, and Diablo too.

Regarding Redfall, the developer may be backing down from always-online for single-player:

https://www.eurogamer.net/redfall-developer-working-to-u-turn-on-single-player-always-online-restriction

Maybe. They mention they wanted to require always-online in order to track gamer's movements all the time, in order to "help" the gamers if needed.

The original news' comments are telling:

https://www.eurogamer.net/redfall-requires-an-online-connection-even-in-single-player#comments

The second comment is already "lulz whot? u don have internet, for updates and shit? Man oh man, suxxors to be you I guess, lolz am I rite?"

So yeah, there is variance, lots of gamers feel that it is ok for even a single-player to require constant internet connection, not only an online validation when installing or starting the game. Because, duh, Netflix and shit require it too (which does sound logical).

And then in the other end of the spectrum, there are the DRM-free-freaks like many on GOG, who don't want online activation even for installing a game, for game preservation (ie. that I know that it won't stop me from playing the game 5-10 years from now, even if the store or the publisher closes doors).

Just yesterday I bought around 130€ worth of games and DLCs from GOG, even though I am unsure when exactly I will have time and will to actually play them, and I have already almost 2400 other games on my GOG librady already.

Would I have bought them if they had any kind of DRM, that might prevent me from playing them 5-20 years from now? Of course not, I would have waited and bought them one by one, only when I am sure I will play them right then. Most probably I would have never bought them, but simply forgotten about them completely as months go by.

That is the reason I postponed e.g. buying Skyrim indefinitely on Steam; I felt "well, maybe after I have played Morrowind and Oblivion, and I will want to continue with Skyrim.". With the DRM-free GOG version, I had no such reservation: I decided to buy it right away to my own library, when it appeared to the store, DRM-free. Even if I don't know if I will play it in 1 year or 10 years from now.