A server that doesn't reset. If someone killed a merchant, the merchant stays dead. If your character has become an outlaw, he remains an outlaw, at least until he can pay his debts. A server that grows and changes through time, whether you (singular you) is playing or not.

While playing, you may catch glimpses of other players' "ghosts", and see what they are doing. You may also encounter bloodstains, that using them show you how someone else died. You can also leave messages for other players, and read other players' messages.

Then there are a few PvP zones, where you can invade other players and/or be invaded by them. There are items that can block invasions for a short time, or summon help from other players of your cabal.

And players can also leave summon signs, to help with PvE bosses.

I haven't actually seen it. Though from their recent games, I've only played AC2, AC:B, AC:R and ACIII, and working on AC:L once I feel like it again.
What I've seen is a one-time activation (with rumours that for some games may be optional), some fluff unlocks (costumes), some meaningless unlocks (instead of carrying 6 more than you need knives, you can carry 10 more than you need knives), and a few "That was it??" extra areas.
Could those things be included in the game without the need to unlock them? Yes.
Do you need those things to have the full experience? No.

Haven't played Watch Dogs to know how important those skills that require multiplayer are, and from what I recall, AC:IV actions that required multiplayer had the multiplayer requirement patched out.

I might at least partly agree with Pheace, if restricting discussion to AAA games made by EA/Ubisoft/Activision. But even there I think we will continue seeing also fully offline games, no matter what some bigwigs claim how they will make _all_ future games online games. For all we know, they'd like to make all games free-to-play games where the money comes from microtransactions.

Previously some bigwigs seemed to think all future (AAA) games should be World of Warcraft clones where you pay monthly fee for playing, but that still didn't quite pan out for most of the gaming market, even if WoW was indeed successful in doing that.

For now I don't see e.g. most indie developers going the extra mile to make mandatory online services for all their games, just so that they can inconvenience pirates (and legitimate users).

Well I agree Indies are independent so are another matter entirely but the giant publishers could all go off a DRM fuelled trip if they want to, it wouldn't be the first time. Remember when they were falling over themselves to put more and more intrusive DRM on disks and it even got to the point where some games came with actual rootkits. Consumer backlash eventually kicked in for the more extreme examples but people were willing to put up with a lot before that. Now we have things like SimCity and Anno 2070 which does suggest that battle for more DRM is on again.

Btw although I think the situation with Indies is better I wouldn't give them a free pass either. Services like Steamworks can make it relatively easy to implement this stuff.

I find that a bit contradictory. You are locked out of some single-player areas, yet you feel you are still getting the full single-player experience? What if those extra areas had been interesting, and not "That was it??"? Would you then feel you are missing something from the "full experience"?

It is also contradictory to what that Ubisoft bigwig said. His whole point was that you would be locked out of single-player content ("services") that you'd like to have, unless you play parts of the game online. So that e.g. pirates would feel they are not getting the full game. I think they are now experimenting with different models, ie. how much single-player content they could lock behind online services. The same way like they experiment with mobile free-to-play games how much they can inconvenience the cheapskate gamers who try to play their games without paying for microtransactions (e.g. Dungeon Keeper Mobile and Plants vs Zombies 2). I think both of these games have received updates constantly where they fine-tune that, maybe based on user feedback.

I am fine with the idea of pirates being restricted to a gimped version of the game, but not for the legitimate users when Ubisoft finally shuts down the servers which are needed for that extra single-player content. GOG does it the right way IMHO, pirates don't have timely access to latest updated versions or technical support that they'd have if they have the game on their GOG account, but me as a legitimate user doesn't feel gimped at all even in the future when GOG finally shuts down, as no single-player content available to me depends on GOG's existence.

I am restricting my viewpoint to single-player content, as multiplayer content by its nature is quite different, and there I find it more acceptable that I may be restricted by things out of my control (like there being no one else besides me playing the multiplayer part anymore, the reason why I'm finally phasing out of TeamFortress Classic; most of the maps are just not fun with only five human players on the server). And it is also the reason you don't see me paying money for multiplayer-only games (exception: I bought some Unreal Tournament games from GOG, just because they happened to be part of a cheap bundle).

But so far it has been mostly optional. Or are there indie games where part of the single-player content is locked behind playing online? Maybe there are, but I'm pretty sure they keep staying in the minority.

I think it takes quite a lot of extra effort to make the online parts as an integral part of the single-player experience, e.g. the things I hear about Watch Dogs. That goes beyond merely using Steamworks, especially when talking about multiplatform games (Steamworks won't help you on XBone or PS4, I think).

Started replying as I read, thus the multiplayer mentions on top. Added this here so you don't have to wonder why I'm referencing MP.

Tomb of the Lost adventurer for Tomb Raider. Do you get the full experience without playing it?
TNT: Evilution for Doom II. Do you get the full experience without it?
The Plutonia Experiment for Doom II. Do you get the full experience without it?

In all cases, there's some extra stuff you can experience, but not in the base game. Personal opinion, the games are 100% without those, and 120% with those. So no contradiction (for me at least) with that. More or less what I keep saying about DLCs.


Speculation. At no point does he talk about single player. The gamespot articles says, and I quote Please point out the "Single Player" in that sentence, or in the article, in case I missed it.

So basically, they are doing what gaming companies have been doing for the last 30+ years. Experiment, get feedback, adapt. Yet you see that as a bad move. Would you rather that they found one winning strategy and stuck to that? Oh, wait, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, FIFA, NHL. What's the most common comment? "Why should I buy a reskin of last year's game?".


Replace single-player content with player content, and you just described the multiplayer communities. I won't be able to experience KKnD multiplayer, because even if the network protocol was still in use, I wouldn't be able to find players. I'm not able to play old consoles games, because I can't find a TV that can take the proper channel from the RF signal. Not to mention being unable to properly unlock the old LSL games' age check, due to the questions no longer being relevant.

Games do unfortunately have an optimum time to play them. Some have that limit due to multiplayer communities, others due to patches being available on a single site only, others due to authorization/authentication gates. Not to mention data locked behind technological gates, be they floppy disks, or tape backups. But no, blame it on current trends.

Access to latest updated versions requires an upload, whether we are talking about GOG or not. And from what I recall, that usually takes a day or two for non-GOG versions, so it is possible that pirates do get updated versions before GOG users do.
As for support, I don't recall that many forum answers requiring a proof-of-purchase.
So those points may very well be moot.


And that is another problem. At which point does single player stop and multiplayer begins? Is Tyrian's co-op single player or multiplayer? What about games that player 2 can pick up the controller and join in the action? I think a mario game was the first to introduce it, though can't recall.

So yeah, you may not care about multiplayer, which remains fine. But Ubisoft believes that the players do care about multiplayer, or seamless multiplayer (see "The Crew"), and they are going to add extra content for those players. Kind of how CD Projekt added big boxes and manuals to physical releases in Poland, because they thought that was what their players wanted.

So, it does seem that Ubisoft isn't making games that you want to play. They are making games other people want to play. But they still say that they want to add extra services to entice people to buy the games, not pirate them. Again, exactly what CD Projekt and GOG did and are doing, but targeting someone else.

No he's right, they definitely are going that way. at least, that's the way they're trying for it. I don't think the singleplayer-only game will completely disappear because too many people want them. a lot of people didn't like the idea of an elder scrolls mmo. so that isn't going anywhere. but they will increasingly try to lock in these games and tie them to some kind of servce. sim city and battlefield were just the start of what they want. and if you can't connect, you probably can't play it in any way that's not intentionally bothering to the player.

I'm not sure that pirates are going to shed too many tears over this. They only spent $0 on the game, so are they really going to be that upset they're missing some content? And they'd need to be upset enough that they'd now change their ways and pay the full price of the game to experience the portion/content/services they missed... I don't think so.

It might rather make pirates feel a bit better about themselves because they're not playing the full game, so they may take the view that they're thus not really pirating it, but demoing it rather.

I think publishers should either restrict their games fully or not at all. If they restrict them fully, they'll lose some paying customers like me who dislike being inconvenienced by DRM. If they don't restrict them, they'll lose some paying customers who, despite having the means to pay, only choose to pay if they are forced to pay. How many are in each camp? I wish I knew. I take the view that there is more good in society than bad... but maybe I'm delusional.

If I were a publisher/developer, I'd focus on selling my games to people who willingly want to pay me, rather than those I have to coerce to pay me.

German IGN has picked up the news of Ubi's PR-babble (and it's nothing more than that, unless they follow their words with some deeds!) and threw gog into the mix, resulting in an article with the title of "What the industry can learn from gog.com". I quite like the sound of that.

Got it, thanks!

The guy basically said the plan was to bake online into single player games. While it may start out with only "extras" the goal appears clear by his words, make it so playing the game without the baked content isn't worth it.

That's not everybody going doomsday, that's reading and understanding what he said and what it means and understanding where we've already gone. We are headed for always on DRM being a reality. One step at a time maybe, but no one ever said we would just go from today to always online DRM tomorrow. It's going to be baby steps just like this so as to fool consumers into continuing to support something that in the long run goes against their own interests.

First it was a one time online activation.

Then it was an online client, some of which require being online every time (GMG Capsule).

Next will be "extra" online content baked into otherwise offline games.

The direction we're going is pretty clear and the time to stop it is now, not when it's too late. Although TBH it may already be too late. And to be more honest, even if it isn't too late, it appears clear to me that once again consumers are basically going to be ok with it so we're headed there anyway.

Reads headline - "Oh! This looks good, I would like to play some of their games"
Reads actual article - "BLEEPING Ubi one-twentieth-wit"

And again, it is possible to make a game that gets enhanced by online play, without the offline play been limited. See NWN for example, or Dark Souls.

But here's the problem. Ubisoft is going to make games that have the seamless drop in, drop out, which I'm not sure if they do count as single player any more.
Now, I count always online DRM as being unable to play without being online. Unable to play multiplayer or coop without being online does not mean there's no single player. Having specific part of single-player content being accessible only while online doesn't automatically mean that the offline game is a lesser experience. It depends on what parts are unavailable.

So, the doomsday scenarios, or "reading and understanding" is that they'll make the single player online only. What they said though was that they want to add increased value to their games, for those that buy them. The games they make may not be for everyone, but that is true for all games made.

Here is his quote: A demo is less than full experience, so in that sense a demo doesn't automatically mean it's a lesser experience??

How can something less than "full experience" not be a lesser experience???

I'm not understanding where you're coming from here. I mean I get sort of the direction you're coming from, in that let's take Fallout 3 for example. Straight out Fallout 3 was a complete experience, even if you didn't have any of the add-ons (I think there 5???). So in that sense, I see where you're coming from. But I'm not reading his whole take like they're just talking about adding extra content to single player games. They're talking about baking online content into single player games to make it so pirates don't get the full experience. That reads completely different from say offering optional extra online content to a single player game.

EDIT: Maybe instead of saying we're heading to "always online DRM" it would be more accurate to say it seems this is evidence we're heading toward all games being multiplayer. Which is technically different, but the same result IMO.

Never been a huge ubisoft fan anyway, this brings my respect for them down even more than it already was.

Allow me to retort with another quote. Sounds familiar? Paying customers paying more for a product that's worth it (to them)?

By having a different definition of the 100%. For me, a steak and french fries dinner is 100%. A steak and french fries, with a side of buttered vegetables is 125%. For someone else, the steak, french fries and vegetables is the 100%, so the steak and fries is only 80%. For me, the 100% is the full experience, the 125% is an extraordinary experience. For the other, the steak, fries and vegetables is the full experience, so the steak and fries is a lesser one.
We both agree though that fries by itself is not a full diner, but an appetizer, a demo if you'd like.


Here's the extra thing I'm reading. Or more specifically, not reading. They don't mention single player games.
Their current line ups are "The Crew", "The Division" and "Assassin's Creed: Unity". The first two are not single player games. They are MMOs, even if you can run them offline. The whole game can be experienced by yourself, or hopefully with a group of friends LAN-like, but if you do interact with more people, that experience will be enhanced.

As for Unity and it's "Coop" missions, those do seem like an after thought, something to cater to the "Why no multiplayer?" question. Whether those missions are needed or just fluff remains to be seen though, but AC is known for the fluff of its side quests.