this post was submitted on 02 May 2025

111 points (86.3% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7181 readers

16 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

admiralpatrick@lemmy.world

lemann@lemmy.world

ptz@dubvee.org

111

Gamers deciding to accept an internet connection as mandatory in order to play a game (any game) is the root of all that is wrong with the gaming industry. (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I should be able to host my own WoW server on my LAN, play CoD split-screen on my TV, or run my own Battlefield tournament on my own LAN.

Using the internet as an option for multiplayer or other optional features of games is fine, but there is absolutely no reason why a video game should ever require an internet connection.

People deciding that it is somehow acceptable to require an internet connection to play a game is a big part of the reason why we have DLC, buggy releases, microtransaction riddled games, and shitty, invasive DRM.

If you have ever been involved in the creation of games that require an internet connection then I hope your asshole itches until the day you die.

Edit: if the game is only available through digital distribution then an internet connection is a requirement to play the game because you have to be able to obtain the game to play it.

Back in the day releasing a buggy game was costly because it meant you would have provide the option to your users to receive updates by mail or in stores. DLC (or expansion packs) would have to be meaningful, because it would mean having to press new discs or make new cartridges in order to provide that content to your users and it wasn't worthwhile for the users to buy if it wasn't substantial. Loot boxes and other microtransactions wouldn't really be a thing because you would have no guarantee that anyone would be willing to buy them because they would have to be provided by mail or in stores on some sort of physical media.

DRM would consist of needing to have a disc in the drive and maybe having to verify that you had a unique activation key by verifying a cryptographic hash against a public key on the disc.

All of this made for better games because the games had to be worth the hassle of going to the store to buy them or waiting for them to be delivered in the mail.

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 32 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I should be able to host my own WoW server on my LAN, play CoD split-screen on my TV, or run my own Battlefield tournament on my own LAN.

I agree with this. I also agree a single player only experience has no business requiring an online connection.

I emphatically disagree that is the root of why modern gaming sucks. Especially since we had a long period where we did have the ability to do the afore-quoted stuff.

The number one reason why we no longer can host our own servers for multiplayer games is because if you controlled the servers, you could theoretically also control the extra content that is in the game files, but locked behind paying real dollars for. The server software being included with the game died with lootboxes and the F2P model.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I consider lootboxes and the F2P model to be a big part of what is wrong with modern gaming and I don't think they'd be a thing or at the very least wouldn't be anywhere near as prevalent if online functionality were required to be strictly optional.

Also, if a game publisher doesn't want you to have access to certain content then they shouldn't include it in the game files.

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

ARK Survival has entered the chat.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The root of all that is wrong with the gaming industry? That's definitely an unpopular opinion. I don't think I've seen anyone attribute the rampant misogy to always online single player experiences lol.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

It would be harder to express that misogyny if you're playing offline with the boys, or at least harder to express it in the presence of women.

[–] ILaughBecauseFunny@feddit.dk 5 points 2 days ago

My fiber box broke some time ago and it took 3 days before a technician came by to replace it in that time I played Baldurs Gate 3... Had no problems at all... There's still good games out there

[–] remon@ani.social 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Edit: if the game is only available through digital distribution then an internet connection is a requirement to play the game because you have to be able to obtain the game to play it.

If the internet connection isn't required after downloading, I don't see the issue. Nobody wants go back to CDs (or what ever games come on these days).

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I absolutely want to go back to physical media. Preferably some sort of non-proprietary medium, like CD, DVD, Blu-Ray, or a USB connected flash storage device.

[–] boletus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Blu-Ray is very proprietary and DVD-Video requires licensing. Some games also have on disc DRM which imo is still akin to making it a proprietary medium.

You can own software without needing to use dated distribution methods. Look at GOG. You can download and keep your games in any way you want forever. And you don't have to deal with annoying formats or media that's hard to back up.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Blu-ray is proprietary in the sense that companies have to pay a licensing fee to put the blu-ray stamp on their disc and officially claim to be a blu-ray, but is otherwise an open standard. DVD and CD are both the same way.

As for on-disc DRM, as long as it never touches the network, it doesn't bother me that much. It's still less than ideal, but it's less of a problem when compared to online DRM.

As for GoG, I applaud their stance towards providing DRM free games, however they are still a digital distribution platform, and suggesting them as an alternative to physical media misses the point of the original post as an internet connection is still required to obtain the game.

It also ignores platforms other than PC.

[–] boletus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

If you want to be able to buy the game physically then sure it would be nice. But as someone who works in the games industry, I can say that you'd be alienating a gigantic chunk of the games industry especially the indie scene. Physical game distribution is really expensive, ethically dubious, and actually acts more as a marketing tool than a means to make sales.

I work for a pretty big studio where I am and we can't afford to do conventional physical distribution. The last studio I worked at only could do it because our publisher had connections.

But that doesn't have to be the nail in the coffin. You have access to the internet. You can make your own physical media by purchasing drm free games and storing it in something quality. if you can't for a specific game then you should vote with your wallet. It'll eventually come to gog or something.

[–] remon@ani.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just buy a harddrive.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why? I have more than enough storage already. That isn't the point of wanting physical media.

When you're able to install off of physical media you have a builtin backup, you have something you can loan to friends, something you can sell when you're done with it, and something that can't be taken from you just because a company went under or lost a publishing license.

Also, at least in the time prior to the prominence of digital distribution you had some assurance that the game would at least function because the company making the game knew they wouldn't be able to just push a day-one update.

[–] remon@ani.social 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

All of that can be achieved with an external HDD at a better convenience. I wouldn't want my games to ship even on a usb flash drive, I already have enough of those.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Sure, if you exclusively game on PC and exclusively buy DRM free titles, you can achieve all of that with an external HDD. I'll give you that.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I feel like WoW is a bad example because the game's business model is the subscription. It is being sold as a service which Blizzard actively manages. I'd accept the argument for the Diablo series, since Diablo is designed for single player and small servers.

But as a counterargument, why aren't more games open source? What is it about gaming where open source gaming is so small compared closed source, while it isn't like that with other forms of software?

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

WoW is a great example. They force an internet requirement in order to justify a subscription model. The subscription model is one of the many things wrong with the gaming industry.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Isn't the fun of the game that it's massively multiplayer? IDK, never played.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 days ago

It is a game based on playing with others to the point where you are supposed to create organizational structures to play the full content of the game.

To use WoW as an example shows that this is just a pricing issue instead of a supply issue for them.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't think people had the means to host their own Neverwinter Nights (1992) or Ultima Online servers. Maybe they could, but those were the dial up days, you'd have to rent expensive servers elsewhere for that.

These were fully online multiplayer only games with permanent progress.

All of this made for better games because the games had to be worth the hassle of going to the store to buy them or waiting for them to be delivered in the mail.

I see your rose tinted glasses made physical shovelware games invisible. Europeans might remember Phoenix Games from the PS1 and PS2 era. I personally remember a SNES game, Kawasaki Super Bike challenge and how much it sucked (fall or bump into an opponent once and you can no longer win the race).
AVGN made a career out of complaining about mainly NES era shitty games. Movie tie-in games only sold because of the movies as "free advertising", they were often pretty shitty games (Charlie's Angels and Catwoman being perfect examples)

So, no, the internet is not the main problem. The endless search for ever higher profits is and has always been the single biggest problem

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Neverwinter Nights included the game server with the game (nwserver.exe). I never played Ultima Online, but it definitely has ways to host your own server now. A lot of MMOs from that era also had self-hostable servers at the time. Pretty much every MMO prior to WoW had some way to run your own server.

As for the existence of bad games prior to the internet, I'm not arguing that bad games didn't exist then. I am arguing that there were fewer of them as a percentage of the total games market because it was a lot of work to patch a game after release, and unless you could tie in to an existing popular IP it wasn't worthwhile to release something you knew would bomb.

I'm also arguing that there were fewer (as in near zero) games that engaged in predatory practices like selling lootboxes, or worthless in-game items, or otherwise using micro transactions to boost revenue, because it would be too inconvenient to buy for the player meaning there was no market for it.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 2 points 2 days ago

Neverwinter Nights included the game server with the game (nwserver.exe).

I'm talking about this NWN, which is why I put the year (wrong by one, but eh) in parentheses. Quoting from a commenter in that piece that claims to be Scott Gries, the game's project manager: "I will confirm that there was no offline game mode. The game required a connection to AOL's NWN server."

A lot of MMOs from that era also had self-hostable servers at the time. Pretty much every MMO prior to WoW had some way to run your own server.

I think you got it backwards, MMOs were, by design, games that the players couldn't host their own servers, they needed to get a hold of leaked or reverse engineered server files off the internet if they wanted that. Everquest, Asheron's Call, Star Wars Galaxies, Ragnarok Online, Anarchy Online, Phantasy Star Online, Final Fantasy XI, all of these predate WoW, none of them offered players the files to host their own servers.

Keep in mind, a number of MMOs of the time charged by the hour.

I am arguing that there were fewer of them as a percentage of the total games market

Fair enough

I’m also arguing that there were fewer (as in near zero) games that engaged in predatory practices

Among offline or mostly offline games, that's true. For online only, the predatory tactics hadn't been perfected yet, but they were there. The absurd grind for MMOs that charged by the hour/minute was the first step, vanilla WoW had blazingly fast leveling compared to the competition of the time. In game cash shops, while not as complete or purposefully obtuse as the ones today, predate WoW.

In this regard, yes, the internet is part of the problem, as you can't have all these predatory tactics without it.

[–] Ace120C@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 days ago

agreed, I have friends who loves to defend Gran Turismo 7 being online only, the fact that it's online only, automatically makes it a bad game.

[–] MaXimus421@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

And you'll do absolutely nothing about it but I'd wager you'll certainly keep buying games.

Just one of those things, folks have valid reasons to bitch but in the end, their wallets will ALWAYS remain open, year to year.

[–] 3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Put pre-ordering games too.

Gamers are one of the dumbest group of people. I play games too but fanboying over company like their corpo overload cant do no wrong is by far the stupidest thing people can do.

Time and time again, steam, sony, nintendo, xbox has shit their beds and people are willingly to slurp it all. Sony? Jacking up price for no reason, mandatory ps account for ps game on steam, removing purchase movie from ps store. Xbox? FULL FUCKING SCREEN ADS. Nintendo? $90 for a game, suing emulator dev. Steam? Paid mods, csgo gambling.

These mega corpo fuckers wont know until gamers vote with their wallet and i know for sure people wont. FOMO is real.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't disagree with any of that. Except for the whole "vote with your wallet" thing. It's pretty well proven that consumer level boycotts don't work. Definitely do what you need to do to stick to your ethics and principals, I certainly will, but don't expect to change anything.

If you want things to actually change, vote with your vote, because the only way to get things to change at a megacorp is through legislation and regulation. Although, at least in my country (the USA) even that seems to be essentially meaningless. I'll still continue to do it for as long as I'm able, but holy shit our election system is broken.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Consumer level boycotts are helping crash the US economy right now. Ask yourself, who would benefit from you believing they don't work?

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Extreme tariffs are crashing the US economy right now by making it unprofitable for a lot of businesses to do business within that economy. It's not a boycott if you can't afford the product or if you can't even buy the product because the company refuses to sell to you because they don't think you'd be willing to pay the price they are now required to charge just to make a profit.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Boycotts from international consumers are hurting us companies, to the point where California's governor implored tourists to come back.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/airline-stocks-hotels-us-tourist-boycott-9bc8fb69

[–] boletus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Concord basically got boycotted out of existence

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Ownership. If it can't be played 100 years from now on a whim, fuck off – it is a rental. If you pay more than $5 to rent junk, you're an idiot. People are fine with being stupid, and the thing is, we must stop being nice and okay with stupid people. You're a problem. You're making the world go to shit because you have no depth and are a whore for whatever little bitch submissive slutting it takes to play some half finished garbage game that costs a fortune to rent. That makes you the shitty person. You're trying to escape your shitty family and life, but you are the same problem passed down to all. Break the cycle and stop passing that shit down. You can't fix anyone except yourself.

I am totally disconnected from it. I would love to play some old counterstrike or 2142 or MW3. But there are no games for sale that I can own. I hope the companies all burn. They get no money from me. I play open source stuff and hack around with the code because I own them. In the present world I play the only games that exist. If you're worth the oxygen you breathe, you should be doing this too. No excuses. Just fix you, and tell everyone you can that they should do the same and what you have done. You have two choices in life, be part of the solution or part of the problem.

[–] UsoSaito@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Only games I play that have mandatory internet access are mmos. Outside of that if it requires it I won't play it. The community can get devs to change too as we did with Nightingale.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

How many of the games you play are only available through a digital distribution service? Because I would say if an internet connection is required to obtain the game then that makes the internet connection a requirement to play.

[–] UsoSaito@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

Obtaining a game digitally is not the same as a requirement to play it.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago

I was wondering where the unpopular opinion was hiding. Here it is!

Most people don't see it that way. They see obtaining and running the game as separate steps.

[–] deur@feddit.nl 3 points 3 days ago

So... how are retail stores oppressing me if they are the only place that sells a game physically?

[–] essell@lemmy.world -3 points 3 days ago

So everyone is agreeing... Did you really think this was an unpopular opinion or were you looking to get this off your chest?