Great point here.

Yeah this is just a defence of deep-rooted anti-consumer practices thats generalizing the issue.

There are multiple types of online-dependent games, so i will do the world a favor and categorize them here, along with viable solutions to prevent their current inevitable unplayability(sticking to PC games for simplicity):

1. Single player games (no continuous server dependence, but launching the game has online-only DRM).

-The dev baked in this online requirement solely to prevent piracy. There is no necessary data being exchanged with a server in order for the game to continuously operate, other than the anti-piracy measures. This means that all a developer needs to do is patch the launcher/game files to not require the online connection, and the game will work fine. Some examples of this anti-piracy software are Denuvo, or Games for Windows Live. In the case of GFWL, anyone who owned a game that required that software to play, can no longer do so as the service has shut down. When denuvo shuts down their servers, those games will be unplayable also.

The solution so far has been to pirate. The community has made their own patches, simple or not, to continue to play games without unnecessary server dependence. This effort should be on the developers.

-Examples -DRM: —GTA V -rockstar game launcher —Diablo 2 Resurrected -Blizzard launcher —Resident Evil 4 Remake -Denuvo —Gears of War(2009 PC) -GFWL (now unplayable without modifying software) —Chronicles of Riddick, AoDA -TAGES (now unplayable without modifying software)

2. Multiplayer games with dedicated servers.

-Most of these games have no option to host a local server, and playing matches alone, split screen or with a friend on your network requires connection to an online server. This has been an intentional design choice for the passed decade or so. Multiplayer games used to come with local or private server hosting baked in, which required no dev-hosted online server connection to continue playing indefinitely.

The solution is more locally/privately host-able servers for multiplayer games. This needs to become the norm again, and has to be implemented as a choice by developers. These games dont need to be redesigned from the ground up for this to work usually either

-Examples -server type: —Halo CE -private/lan servers 👍 —Halo MCC -Dedicated servers, lan requires online connection 👎 —Battlefield 3,4,1,5,2042 -dedicated servers, bf3 was just sunset 👎 —Battlefield 2/1942/Vietnam -Lan AND bots in servers offline 👍 —Call of Duty’s -up until MW2019 they all had robust offline modes that allowed offline lan play, many had bots and zombies modes too 👍 but MW2019 and after have such egregious Blizzard DRM and the game content is an absolute mess, even pirates have a hard time cracking them 👎 —Quake 1-3, CS 1.6/Source, Unreal Tournaments - the quintessential multiplayer format with private lan servers, these came out in the golden era of multiplayer games 👍

3. Server dependent games. (Service games usually)

-This category clumps in MMO, Service, PvP and PvE games together. Data must be passed between players and servers in order for the game to operate properly. Again, this is merely a design choice and not the only way that game could ever be developed in many scenarios, but there are games whose data/processing cannot be hosted locally because of their complexity, such as some MMO’s. This server dependence is prevalent in Service games today because the servers tell the account/game what items they have purchased with real money, all of that is tracked and regulated by the developers in order to, you guessed it, continue to make more money.

There are 2 solutions here… Either design the game so it can also be played without server dependence from the beginning(which in many cases is entirely feasable, but devs prefer you to be always connected to their store to be able to buy more microtransactions)… Or when the game is not financially viable to justify server upkeep, a version of the game or server is released to the public. Yes yes devs dont want to give out their source code and this option requires the most development time, but it prevents people who paid for/into a game from loosing access to it forever.

-Examples -Fixes: —Shatterline -singleplayer version released on steam after online service was sunset 👍 (not free) —Spellbreak -devs released files so players could run their own server once their servers were closed 👍 (free) —World of Warcraft -they would have to do the same as spellbreak, if this game ever shuts down —Anthem -sunset happening in a month or so, no plan to make playable offline/without EA servers, needs dev time👎 —Battleborn -servers taken offline after 4.5 years and i have missed it ever since, needed dev time to work offline 👎 —The Crew -sparked the Stop Killing Games movement with its end, Ubisoft has no plans for an offline patch 👎 (although they do with The Crew 2 👍)

It is important to remember that most(almost all) PC games today bought via Steam, Epic, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Rockstar or EA stores all require an online account to be able to play the games youve bought there, whether or not the games are then playable offline after purchase. Those games are dependent on those online stores in order to access those games if you alter your hardware or software and need to redownload those games, you will need to go through those launcher’s DRM. Some of those launchers won’t let games launch offline ever, as i mentioned in section 1.

GOG and a few DRM free Steam games are some of the only ways to purchase games that have no online dependence once downloaded.

The takeaway here is that many online-only requirements function at best as a means to preserve a distributor’s bottom line and at worst as a form of planned obsolescence that eventually takes away a good you paid for, leaving you with the option of buying the remake, sequel, or another game entirely(like the devs/publishers want).

Here’s to hoping the EU is going to take consumer interests seriously and impose some new rules around game preservation on these money focused companies.

I guess herein lies the potential fallacy of my statement. Decreased desire is a Subjective observation.

One cannot draw a direct correlation, but there is data to conclude that not having a piracy option will boost sales of data initially, at least when it comes to games. (Hence why publishers continue to use Denuvo)

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/10/the-true-cost-of-game-piracy-20-percent-of-revenue-according-to-a-new-study/

Disclosure: I have been sailing the seas for years, but…

This logic does no justice to the objective financial harm being done to the creators/owners of valuable data/content/media.

The original creator/owner is at a loss when data is copied. The intent of that data is to be copied for profit. Now that the data has been copied against the creator/owners will, they do not receive the profit from that copy.

Yes yes the argument is made that the pirate would not have bought the copy anyways, but having free copies of the content available on the internet decreases the desire for people to obtain paid copies of the data. At the very least it gives people an option not to pay for the data, which is not what the creator wanted in creating it. They are entitled to fair compensation to their work.

It is true that pirating is not directly theft, but it does definitely take away from the creator’s/distributor’s profit.

If there is over a 50% chance the device will not do what it is supposed to do (play your game) then nobody will want to use that device. We are just arguing over semantics here. I hope you see this as a not good thing for nintendo to do… “Samus”

Yes most 1st party published games are on the cartridge yes, but the majority of the library is/will be 3rd party…

So being generous this is a “majority brick”

When a switch 2 cannot reach online services, all your physical 3rd party “Game Keycards” become useless to you, as they require the game to be downloaded from nintendo online services.

This is a brick

Theyre way behind the power curve with this one. GOG has had better multi-store integration for a while. I am surprised that steam is even lacking on this.

Microsoft needs to make it so i never need to go into the steam app or the GOG app, and so i never want to, to play all my games. Thats the way to win and become number 1.

Really if Play anywhere expands retroactively like 360 backwards compatibility did… They will have another great PR boom that brings users like myself back to their storefronts.

I have to stop holding my breath for the xbox console library to gain cross compatibility though. Theres no way the Play anywhere program comes close to compensating for all of the classics locked to their consoles. If cross compatibility never happens i will feel slighted as a previous xbox user with a huge library of games.

Im very glad they are… But this effort just negates their last push for backwards compatibility on the xbox console.

I am sure they see the value in merging that library into their PC library. Tbh they will probably choose the lazy route and stick to streaming xbox-only games to PC because it requires no extra planning. Even the streaming process is a convoluted mess though with only certain games/publishers giving their games permission to stream. I am never allowed to stream every game i want for arbitrary reasons, and i dont like that when i have already bought the game.

Xbox wants to move away from local processing anyhow because it funnels users into their beloved subscription model.

Unfortunately, it does not.

Im holding my breath hoping Xbox is smart enough to realize they need to merge their PC and Xbox game stores… But the technical overhead required to do such a thing probably means they wont, even though theyre the only company that could pull it off.

Not pursuing this will mean the death of Xbox hardware, mark my words.

I think i speak for most gamers when i say i have a steam game library, but would not touch the Microsoft PC game store with a 10ft pole.

I am an xbox user, i have a vast digital(and physical) xbox library that can almost drink alcohol. This is the library and store i want on an Xbox handheld. Xbox not pursuing compatibility with that library is what will kill the brand IMO.

Xbox Play Anywhere was a nice program that gave people some double purchases on the MS game store for no extra cost… But it was too sparse to make the barebones MS game store seem worthwhile compared to steam.

If people bother to buy this generic PC handheld with an Xbox sticker on it, they might be slightly more inclined to buy games on the MS same store, but im certain the majority will just use Steam and Gamepass.

They can already do this on all other PC handhelds though, so why would anyone buy this one?!?

This is a problem that Steam Family Share exists to solve.