Operation Sports Forums - View Single Post - Are Online-Requirements for Single Player Modes Good for Gamers? (Roundtable)

OSUXUGrad · 10-26-2014, 01:19 AM

As long-time sports gamer, I'm truly sad that great games such NBA 2K have begun to require an internet connection to access most of the game, including modes that are largely single player. However, to be fair, the modes I care about the most (MyLeague and MyGM) can be be played offline, albeit you have to disable your internet.

In my opinion, the continuing trend of requiring an internet connection to play video games is one of the many battles being fought in the war against "net neutrality." The easiest way to understand the concept of net neutrality is to think of the internet as an open highway. Currently, most internet service providers (or "ISPs) don't restrict access to different types of websites (i.e. shutting down a lane on a highway). Most ISPs don't treat ordinary static websites any different than they do websites such Youtube or Netflix (which use higher bandwidth). Hence, ISPs treat internet usage in a neutral manner.

The goal of ISPs in their war against net neutrality is to treat internet usage less neutral. If they win, ISPs will essentially make internet access into "tiered" product. For example, basic internet (or "Tier 1") will get you low internet usage and access to static websites that don't include high bandwidth whereas "Tier 2" will get you access higher internet usage and websites that include higher bandwidth (i.e. Youtube and online gaming). Think of it as a two-lane highway compared to a four-lane highway; most (logical) people would presume that the four-lane highway is better.

In the end, ISPs want to cash in on the multi-billion dollar gaming industry and it would not surprise me if some developers and publishers are being pressured (or persuaded) by ISPs to continue to require games function only with an internet connection. The idea is that online gaming would be categorized in a higher tier of usage for which ISPs feel justified in charging more money. For game developers/publishers, the benefits of a tiered internet structure include DRM, forcing consumers to purchase games on a yearly basis and potentially making all games digital (reducing overall costs). Unfortunately, the benefits of both ISPs and video game developers/producers go hand in hand...

Ok, rant over lol. Seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach that they are pushing gamers to always be online.

10-26-2014, 01:19 AM	#9
OSUXUGrad Rookie OVR: 0 Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio	As long-time sports gamer, I'm truly sad that great games such NBA 2K have begun to require an internet connection to access most of the game, including modes that are largely single player. However, to be fair, the modes I care about the most (MyLeague and MyGM) can be be played offline, albeit you have to disable your internet. In my opinion, the continuing trend of requiring an internet connection to play video games is one of the many battles being fought in the war against "net neutrality." The easiest way to understand the concept of net neutrality is to think of the internet as an open highway. Currently, most internet service providers (or "ISPs) don't restrict access to different types of websites (i.e. shutting down a lane on a highway). Most ISPs don't treat ordinary static websites any different than they do websites such Youtube or Netflix (which use higher bandwidth). Hence, ISPs treat internet usage in a neutral manner. The goal of ISPs in their war against net neutrality is to treat internet usage less neutral. If they win, ISPs will essentially make internet access into "tiered" product. For example, basic internet (or "Tier 1") will get you low internet usage and access to static websites that don't include high bandwidth whereas "Tier 2" will get you access higher internet usage and websites that include higher bandwidth (i.e. Youtube and online gaming). Think of it as a two-lane highway compared to a four-lane highway; most (logical) people would presume that the four-lane highway is better. In the end, ISPs want to cash in on the multi-billion dollar gaming industry and it would not surprise me if some developers and publishers are being pressured (or persuaded) by ISPs to continue to require games function only with an internet connection. The idea is that online gaming would be categorized in a higher tier of usage for which ISPs feel justified in charging more money. For game developers/publishers, the benefits of a tiered internet structure include DRM, forcing consumers to purchase games on a yearly basis and potentially making all games digital (reducing overall costs). Unfortunately, the benefits of both ISPs and video game developers/producers go hand in hand... Ok, rant over lol. Seriously, it makes me sick to my stomach that they are pushing gamers to always be online.