Are those examples single-player content that was there to begin with, but locked out from some players (because they won't go online to unlock them)? That would be one distinction. I was referring mostly to some single-player content, which was there to begin with, but only unlocked if you go through the hoops that e.g. pirates are unable to go through.

As for whether DLC content is needed for a "full experience", it depends. Sometimes it is needed (depending who you ask), sometimes it may be argued that it is not needed. For instance, why do people keep requesting the missing expansion packs to existing GOG games? Why don't they consider the base game "the full experience"? For instance the earlier missing expansion packs from the Wing Commander games, Privateer, Dungeon Keeper, Magic Carpet etc. Weren't they full experiences already before the expansion packs?

I personally tend to consider them incomplete with some official single-player content missing, even if it is something that was added afterwards. Nowadays I'd also consider e.g. Far Cry 2 incomplete without the Fortune's Pack, even if it "merely" adds a couple of vehicles and weapons (especially as one of those added vehicles ended up being my most favored vehicle in the game). I'd hate it if I had bought Far Cry 2 with that added content, but couldn't access that content later anymore, just because I can't connect to a Far Cry 2 authentication or multiplayer server five years from now, in order to unlock them again.

Yet, the examples (Watch Dogs and that AssCreed game) show just that: some of the single-player content (some AC areas, or part of Watch Dogs skill trees) being locked from you, unless you go through the hoops online to authenticate the game (through online multiplayer, if needed).

So at this point I don't believe he was referring only to pure multiplayer parts which don't affect the single-player content in any way. His message was pretty clear: make the non-authenticated version incomplete for all potential buyers, not just e.g. those who care for multiplayer.

It is different if the adaptation is to improve games that people love to buy, rather than "how can we milk the most money from our customer base before most of them start objecting the changes".

Also, what the masses might be ready to tolerate (e.g. games as a service which may cease to exist at some point) might not be what I personally want. Or is your point that because most gamers are fine playing Clash of Clans and Candy Crush Saga, I should like them too? Of course if the masses prefer something different than what I do, there's little I can convince the big companies otherwise.

Thank god for GOG though, for going for the niche into which I fit.

Again, here you are referring to stagnating to one game type and the games not evolving at all.

I was talking about trying to introduce mandatory "service models" which are there only to benefit the publisher, not the customer (me).

No I don't. I explained before why I restricted the discussion to single-player content, mainly because the nature of online multiplayer is more of the sort which I can't control anyway (e.g. because there are no other players).

But that is mostly still in your control, keep a TV which you can use with it, or emulate the system.

But as I've said before, consoles by their nature (walled-garden design) are problematic anyway. The copy protection and encryption on old console cartridges has the same purpose as DRM, to restrict how you can use the content. This can become a problem for e.g. emulation in the future systems.

Irrelevant, as the workarounds are so simple (either google for the correct answers, or download a list of correct answers).

If e.g. Watch Dogs had a similarly simple workaround that I can use 20 years from now to access to locked single-player content, no problem then. It doesn't.

But DRM for single-player content is an arbitrary restriction that I can't affect with my own actions, something that from my end-user's point of view is merely a nuisance and an obstacle. If it further restricts the "optimum" time to play the game, then I am against it. It is something that never was there to benefit me.

The technological gates, e.g. floppy disks or console cartridges, are an obstacle only if the medium has copy protection, encryption or some other way they've tried to make sure you can't use the content without that medium (which is a similar arbitrary and unneeded restriction to the usage, as DRM). I still have happily installed some very old PC floppy games that didn't have copy protection or key disk check, so they still work fine on my current PC running under DOSbox, even without necessarily having an access to the original floppy disks.

Just because there may be other reasons I can't play an original game anymore (e.g. because there is no system or emulator to run the game anymore) does not automatically mean that any additional and arbitrary obstacles (like copy protection and DRM) would be equally fine too. Some of them I consider nature of the beast, some of them an obstacle that shouldn't have been there to begin with.

How would the pirates have access to updated GOG installers before GOG users, unless someone in the GOG staff uploaded the updated installers to pirates beforehand?

In general, hunting down for working updates for pirated material is a true pain in the ass, and in many cases unachievable. That's one of the reasons for the success of Steam and GOG, instead of just pirating the same stuff online. Plus security issues, like the Russian editions having those nice keyloggers and other nice extras.

When someone reports the a problem in the forum, usually the blues suggest contacting the support directly. I would be quite surprised if GOG staff never checked at that point whether the customer actually has that game in their account. After all, there is also the promise of 30-day money back guarantee, they might have to pull the game away from their account.

If you are suggesting that support from other forum users is all the support anyone could ever need with their GOG games, then you are just arguing for argument's sake.

Maybe I should have said "online multiplayer", just to be clear.

So your argument for:

EA requiring you to play SimCity online, even if you wished to play all by yourself.
Diablo 3 requiring you to be constantly online, even if you wanted to play alone.
Watch Dogs keeping some single-player content locked, until you unlock them online.

is that that is what their customers wanted from them? And more specifically, their customers wanted them to make it all mandatory, not giving any PC gamer an option to e.g. play Diablo 3 or SimCity offline (like the console Diablo 3 gamers can play it)?

If you really believe it was the customers who wanted it all to be mandatory and not optional, I can't take you seriously anymore.

DayZ? Most posts I see about that game are 'yeah, it looked great, but I just get killed by other players within five minutes of spawning, so I quit'.

I played MMOs for years, but these days the last thing I want is to be forced into playing games with asshats on the other side of the world. That's why I have no intention of buying DayZ, even though the basic humans vs zombies setup looks interesting.

Something some publishers (and even indie developers) forget, is the right to 'unplug'.

I agree that the 'always online model' is something many want to have, to control their products and to control their customers.

And there are many customers who don't care, partially because they think that new technologies should used as a whole, maybe thinking that human beings are smarter than their ancestors, which is absolutely false.

If that move had massively happened 10 years ago, I would have been afraid of the future concerning gaming. But I am now confident of the idea to stop buying new games in the future if this business model become the only one to purchase video games.

Maybe I am old enough or it is actual digital market and second hand market, but I could easily stop buying any new game at all. And stop thinking about playing any new game.
Just completing my backlog could be enough.

Am I the only one in that case?
Would those publishers take the risk to lose a part of market?

Depends on the part. Losing the 30+ crowd that prefers the single player games but gaining the 13-27 crowd that wants the multiplayer part may be more profitable. Especially since the 30+ crowd already has enough games, but doesn't have enough time to play.

You do realize it's a massive, massive success right?

The moment "always online" DRM for SC was annouced, everyone knowing even only the bare basics of how gaming is working were saying that this is going to end as a massive failure and major inconvenience for honest customers. And that pirates will crack this in just days if not in hours. Numerous examples of similar failures were provided. EA answer can be boiled down to "you are all pirate crybabies, bitching 'cause you will not be able to steal our game!".
Then the game was released, and DRM wise it was - surprise, surprise! - massive failure with people unable to use the game they buy. EA reaction? Put the blame on customers! "Too many people logged in and expanding their cities too fast!". People were asking for de-activating "always on-line" feature, as it was crippling the game, but EA answered that's it can not be done, 'cause it's required for the very basic game functions and without it it will not work at all. And then some crafty bugger decompiled the game code and discovered that it's all bullfeces, because DRM is not required for anything except posting your meaningless 'score' on some 'facebooky' section of some EA thrash server; and when it's deactivated game runs just fine.
So, they "different approach" was: ignoring customers opinions, discarding facts that they do not like, blaming others for their own failures and lying to people demanding access to product for which they pay.
Maybe you are OK with this kind of "different approach", but I'm not.

Most games that deviate from the previous title do just that, ignore customer opinion. Some end up good, some do not. But I'd rather they try something new than stay with the old tried method.

"No one likes achievements", "Multiplayer sucks", "Consoles/PCs are inferior". So you mean they acted like gamers? (not really serious answer this part)

Interestingly enough, from day 2 onwards (maybe day 3), there weren't that many server problems. The US release did catch them by surprise, but by the European release the servers were up to par. You did follow the story that far, right? Not to mention that an increased customer interest will bring many sites down, including GOG.

You mean the "You bought a game that stated it requires an online connection, yet you want to play without it"? Or the fact that they did reimburse them with other games? Or that they did offer them an offline patch, even if it did take some time to get there?

I'm a bit of a weird one here. I like to see people trying different approaches. I don't mind seeing 99 failed/idiotic ones if it means seeing 1 that is worth it. And if the market does find the "idiotic" approaches welcome, then the approach wasn't idiotic, no matter how much I disliked it.

So a representative of Ubisoft slates DRM, yet continues to use it? Is paying lip service to unpopular things whilst still engaging in their use the new Ubisoft PR strategy? Unless we see wholesale changes in Ubisoft's distribution model and thus DRM practices I doubt people will be placated by it.

I had a friend who bought Far Cry 3 on Steam recently - and found he had to install UPlay to play it. He hasn't touched it since, and won't purchase anymore Ubisoft products as a consequence (he barely tolerates Steam, and does so only as keys are handed to him for it from developers he tests for). Given his GOG account has a backlog of games whose play time will keep him busy for a couple of lifetimes, that's not a customer you wish to turn away. He is not the only one either. Yet Ubisoft, despite statements like that given in the initial post and an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that DRM isn't effective, willingly turns away such business to indulge in their nonsensical fantasy that DRM works or, in the first post's statement, will be willing to pay $60 or so for a few more bits that won't be in the pirate version (until pirates work out how to sort that out as well). We don't want words Ubisoft, we want action.

One day a large publisher might set out a clear, logical, consumer friendly policy on such matters and will rule out DRM completely and result in them meeting their objective of maximising income. This will closely be followed by pink creatures with curly tails soaring majestically through the sky.

I don't know what "DLC argument" you are referring to, but I'll say it again:

You claim the base game without DLC or expansion packs is already a full version, missing nothing. So how do you feel some GOG games missing(?) official expansion packs? Does it matter, since according to you those games are fully complete already without the expansion packs? Why did GOG users want the missing expansion packs for various GOG EA games? It seemed as if, lo and behold, considered the existing releases incomplete without the expansion packs. How can that be? Anyway, I gather you never were part of that crowd, and couldn't care less if the expansion packs are ever obtained by GOG.

The Ubisoft example is even worse, as their intention is to lock you out of single-player content that you have already paid for, unless you go through extra hoops that may not be possible to perform in the future.

Maybe you were referring to some day-0 DLC things where content on the current game was locked until you pay for the "DLC" (basically an unlock code).

I have more options now as the gaming market has matured, and now it seems some publishers hate it that I have such options. In a way they want to turn back time, back to pay per play models where you pay more for gaming, without them offering anything worthwhile in return.

Part of that tactic seems to be to make the single payments so low that you wouldn't realize you have spent $100 or more for a simple mobile game through microtransactions (or micro-DLCs). I see it as a similar borderline scamming as those "quick loan" companies that have popped up at least here the last few years, advertising how easy it is to get some money from them, while having outrageous interest rates for the short time loans. They are targeted to poor people who are in a dire need of financial help or are compulsive buyers (buying more than they can afford), and are bad at math (understanding the outrageous interest rates).

Both have already caused some uproar (e.g. kids causing their parents hundreds or thousands dollars worth of damage through a simple mobile game). The quick loan companies here have received some extra legislation.

In both cases I don't feel they are really offering anything really worthwhile that is needed in the (money loaning or gaming) market, they are just their own private "make an easy buck on unsuspecting and dumb victims"-schemes. So at least I don't want to support either with my money. GOG is part of the story me voting with my wallet on how I want the gaming market to be.

The relevant part is whether they are optional or mandatory features. I have hard time believing any end-users have e.g. requested Blizzard to make Diablo 3 _require_ always-online connection for all gamers, even those who are interested only playing it alone offline. It wasn't added there to make the game a better experience to gamers (those who wanted to play it always-online could have done just that, even if the feature was fully optional), it was added so that the publisher has more control over the game.

Blizzard tried to whitewash it by claiming completely stupid things like "We don't want people to use hacked single-player characters in multiplayer games, and people would get confused if there can be separate single- and multiplayer characters", hence they removed the option for offline single-player characters. They presented it as something that benefits gamers, which was complete and utter bullshit.

So now you are talking about cracking the game with some Russian trojan utilities. Thanks, but I'd prefer not to have to circumvent the DRM and stuff, that is even against the law in many parts of the world.

I already explained to you why the same rules don't apply to online multiplayer and single-player games because of their different nature. I never claimed TFC is phasing out due to DRM.

Having no interested players anymore in a multiplayer-only game like TFC is not an arbitrary and artificial restriction. Having single-player content locked until you somehow prove the publisher that you are the sole user of the game is.

Nope, they won't help them with their pirated GOG game installer, and either way is still much more hassle than downloading it from the legit service instead (in this case, GOG.com).

Not sure about what? GOG staff's ability to check whether the user has bought a certain game from GOG? What makes you so unsure about that?

You are not paying attention. My point all along was that the extra service you get for buying a legit copy of a GOG game instead of pirating it (e.g. official support from GOG staff for your purchased games) is not something that automatically restricts you out of single-player content, in case that service doesn't exist anymore at some point.

Single-player content locked behind online services (or DRM) does.

That is why I said GOG does it the right way. They offer you extra perks if you buy a legit copy of the game, but lack of those perks (e.g. because GOG doesn't exist anymore at some point) does not lock you out of the game. That's what I consider worthwhile extra service for legit customers, with no strings attached.

The "different approach" (e.g. making online gaming the only option for a game which in its nature is more like a single-player game) does not come from user wishes. Then they later back down from it due to user reaction.

The SimCity example was hilarious, as EA originally claimed it is impossible to make the game play in offline mode, as it is designed from its very core to be an online experience. Somehow they still managed to do the impossible and enable an offline mode. Maybe it was because some cracker enabled an offline gameplay mode for it anyway, destroying EA's claims of it being impossible.

Similar bs and spin-doctoring as from Ubisoft regarding making all games "online experiences" (as if they always have to be _mandatory_ (not optional) online experiences, and that's the way most gamers want it to be, mandatory).

It is a different thing to talk about new game ideas, and changes to services (especially when the feedback for the service changes doesn't come from user wishes, but company bigwigs). Should Valve e.g. abolish the Steam offline mode, just because that would be something new for Steam? You don't want Valve to stay with the old and tried offline mode that many Steam users want to be there, it has to go just because you want to see change for the sake of change?

I'll also remind you that the discussion usually arises when the new features are mandatory, not optional. A game allows you to hop from the single-player part into an online world where you can interact with other players? Great, why would anyone oppose that optional part? Good if it works, and if it doesn't, hey it was only optional.

Oh, they make it mandatory, ie. you can't play even the obvious single-player part offline at all even if you wanted to, and you are forced to go online to interact with other players (and authenticate their game from time to time)? And the publisher fails to explain why that part can't be fully optional, like EA failed for SimCity, and Blizzard failed for Diablo 3?

Half time, time for a few quick replies
This image. You claim that the right most image is the Game+Expansion. I claim that the left most image is Single player + "locked content"

I said that is what companies have been doing for 30 years, you said that it's different from what they've been doing for 30 years. I reply that you did have companies 30 years ago milking you dry, you say "It's different". The fact that there are more options doesn't make it different, same tactics as there were 30 years ago, plus new ones.

Dark Souls 2 uses VAC. Look for said post in GOG's forums.

Ah, so I guess Visual Studio is also illegal, right? Cheat Engine is a utility that allows you to view and modify memory, and automate said process. More or less a debugger.
You do know what a debugger is, right?
The things you assume are Russian trojan utilities were master keys to make any steam game steam free, you know, the things you claimed cannot exist? Too bad you can't spend 15 minutes researching them.

Patch 1.0.9 for Shadow Warrior released online on 29/10/2013
Patch 1.0.9 for Shadow Warrior released on GOG 05/11/2013
Instructions for scene update, extract archive to installation folder, copy crack over. Cracked updated released a week before GOG's release, unsure if exe was modified or not. If it isn't, then the crack isn't needed for GOG's version.

The lack of blues in the forums. You don't need to have the game to post a question, and I sincerely doubt there's a blue that checks the questions, then checks if the poster has the game in their account.

You said that the support is a bonus, which it is. I said that the service, while nice, isn't always necessary. You can get through most problems by using the forums, and should you run into problems in 20 years time, the forums will be your only help.
If you wish to play now, the support is available, as is the authentication mechanism. If you wish to play in 20 years, the authentications may not be available, and neither is the support.

Must be nice knowing the results of experiments before doing them. How come you don't have a Nobel prize yet?

Sim City had a "If offline for 5 minutes, quit" clause. The "cracker" you say increased the limit to 20 minutes, and proved that it could be done. Whether or not there were side effects to that was not properly tested, but the tests were promising. So much like a leaking radiator can be patched with an egg, people said that the game only needed a small patch. Whether the car would later overheat was irrelevant.

In E3 2013, The Crew and The Division were the two games that I liked most from that little they showed. I knew that they were not single player at once though, but they were still the best I had seen in that E3.
Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the friends with which to properly enjoy said games. That doesn't make them bad games though, just games unsuitable for me. I accept that, and move on, I don't claim that they are bad games because I won't be able to play them when the servers go down.

Funny, Valve is actually experimenting with a lot of things, is offline mode the only you can address? What about streaming, sharing, cards, sales? What if they changed offline mode to an sms based one? Have a number generator (think blizzard authenticator like), send a text with the number and account name, then get a code that will put your steam in authenticated offline mode, even if your computer was never connected to the internet.
Nah, scratch that idea, why try something new when we have something working?

Yeah, I mean an X-Com game that you can choose to play it in either Turn Based or Real Time mode. Why should they give you that option, they should keep the turn based only.
Or a first person X-Com, or a space simulator X-Com, why change a winning strategy?

Sim City required the online for data collection, but seeing how players didn't like it, they did remove it. Diablo 3 was due to the Real Money Auction House, which I'll (again) point you towards the DS2 VAC thread.
Could they do it differently? Yes. Did they? No. Will they again? I prefer to wait and see, you assume they'll do the same again.

Back to soccer.

Phew. Some lengthy back and forth here, for good reasons too. Here's what I think both groups are kind of talking past, I apologize if I've misunderstood anyone.

On one end, we've the view that a single-player game without its DLC (regardless of whether that was on-disc pay to unlock DLC) and/or disregarding its online components/services, is a full experience.

On the opposite end, we've the view that a single-player game without its DLC (especially if that DLC was on-disc pay to unlock), disregarding online component/service access or functionality, is not a full experience.

Where these come to a head is in the middle of these game design models, wherein the following occurs:

A single-player game is parceled out not only in the old DLC model but also in some ways in the online component/service model, mostly in terms of unlocking stuff back in the core game through tapping those otherwise negligible components/services. These seem to be developing into not only extrinsic unlocks, such as achievements/trophies, but intrinsic unlocks relating to otherwise entirely separate and distinct content from the online components/services, back in the core, single-player game.

What's problematic here is that, this sets single-player users against one another unnecessarily, as both would otherwise enjoy their experience, but now you have some that see this as intrusive while others see it as nothing major. Hey, get with the times, all games are shifting from disconnected, isolated experiences, to connected, integrated experiences, and really, you can ignore that new stuff. Except as I've noted, it seems to be moving in a direction where you can't, necessarily, and it's not merely a matter of differing perspectives, but that of divergent actualities. It is not merely a view that games in the past featured additional, substantial DLC in the form of expansions and now instead intrinsic content is being cut out to be sold back, it is in some instances very much an actuality. Not in every instance, and we do still see the old method of DLC via substantial expansions remaining, but to equate all modern DLC with what was found in the past is a grave mistake. It must be recognized that how additional game content is being made and sold has both significantly remained the same as much as it has greatly changed, for better and/or for worse.

Not many will complain about features that requires additional players to be experienced, and when a game's older or less popular, not being able to find those players or access the infrastructure to play those parts, but people will complain when those features affect their otherwise single-player experience blatantly. It's been seen across a multitude of games mentioned throughout this thread. The problem is not the transformation of games into more connected and integrated experiences alone, it is the method by which this is being done, requiring online connections, "encouraging" players to use these features to unlock content separate from the feature itself, and otherwise clumsily weaving this content together.

That, I think, is the biggest problem here and even worse, because of how clumsily this has all been handled, every user of digital content is reasonably skeptical when they hear or read about attempts to abandon DRM in favor of experience enhancing online services or content. In numerous instances, this has often proven to be more limiting or inconveniencing than it's promoted to be, due either to poor internet infrastructure, security, or a variety of other factors. It doesn't mean it will always be that way regardless of who's doing it, but I think it's safe to say, almost everyone here has had one experience or another with an online "solution" that's proven more trouble than it's worth to use, due to any of the aforementioned elements.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm hesitant to deride Ubisoft's direction here despite what my experience tells me to expect, since I think this sort of thing can be done right and done very well, if a light, careful approach is taken to weaving it into the core single-player experience. Interestingly enough, I think the only developers to have pulled this off so far have been those you might least expect it from (due mostly to their interesting approach to the internet in general), such as the Japanese developers like From Software and Capcom. In both the Souls series of games and Dragon's Dogma, both have shown a fascinating aversion to heavy-handed shoving of online components/services into games, instead toying with more innovative approaches that genuinely are experience-enhancing without (to my knowledge) walling off otherwise core content.

As a side-note, another interesting element to add to this conversation, since MMOs have been brought up, is that even within MMOs, you have people very adamantly opposed to forcing the intersection of differing playstyles, which is exactly what we see happening here and driving this discussion in the first place. PvP players often prefer only to get their progression and rewards from PvP, anything requiring them to go outside of this mode some find a drag or frustrating; similarly, PvE players feel likewise when anything thrusts them into PvP. They each want their "pure" experience of their preferred style of play, and are often very irritated when they feel they're being pressed outside of this.

It should be kept in mind, this is even within fully connected and integrated games. The proof is in the pudding here, players want to see their differing playstyles kept separate and distinct, as much as they can, whether it is single-player or massively multiplayer.

Since this is a thread about statements from Ubisoft, I'll ask a couple of questions to the others here that are related to Ubisoft.

How has the Uplay experience been for you with single player, like FarCry 3?

Is Uplay basically just a DRM layer like the way GFWL is, or is it a serious attempt at a feature rich client like Steam?

Dunno. There was a lot of fuss about it last year, but now the only time I ever see people talk about it is when they're complaining about being killed by ass-hats.

Edit: I see the web site claims a total of 2909 years played, and 1,737,741 unique players. That means, on average, aeachplayer played for around 15 hours; not a lot for an online game. And it's still free at the moment, isn't it?