Going to take a quick departure today and talk about video games, specifically the much-reviled release of SimCity 5 this week. If you've been paying any attention to this at all, then you know that SimCity 5 has been mired with technical issues since it's launch, much of which folks are tracing back to it's requirement of a persistent online connection. And the mass opinion has been, by and large, that requiring players to be online at any time they're playing the game is an idiotic move by any and all corporate suits involved. It was the same story with Diablo 3's much anticipated and similarly-plagued launch.
If you're not so familiar with this realm of discourse, the idea behind an always-online connection is that it acts as a safeguard against piracy. Games, much like movies, are pretty juicy targets for digital piracy. Both Diablo 3 and SimCity 5 require gamers to be connected at all times because it helps them enforce anti-piracy practices. It also helps enforce and reduce cheating the game. Both games are fairly revolutionary in this practice (you may be thinking to yourself that MMO's have long-since required an always-online connection, but the main difference here is that SimCity 5 and Diablo 3 can both be enjoyed in a single-player setting).
So what's so bad about requiring always online? The rather robust community of online pirates have their grievances, obviously, but I'm not going to address them. Suffice it to say if you think charging for games (whether it's charging $60 or anything at all) is wrong, then I'm not going to change your mind in this post. However, if you're a working stiff like myself who doesn't mind paying for games and thinks it's fair for companies to charge for their work, then please consider the following:
The implementation of supporting a connection-required game on the scale of franchises like Diablo and SimCity isn't a matter of following the right steps and having your shit together for Day 1 - it's a bold thrust into all but brand new territory. Seriously - no other games have done this, with the exception of those few mentioned above that only support multiplayer, and even those have had years to refine their practices and build - none have had an initial launch that compares to the scope of D3 and SC5.
I work in the industry myself, and I'm fairly appalled at how many critics and developers both have been so quick to bash the game for it's attempt to support always-online. The group I work with consists of extremely dedicated and intelligent people, and we run into unforeseen issues in our launches (and the stuff I work on doesn't even compare to the scale of SC5). It honestly confounds me that SC5's peers can be so quick to forget how challenging and dynamic the work we're doing as a community is, and I bet that the folks wagging their fingers today wouldn't have near the balls to attempt to launch a project as ambitious as SC5.
I used the term territory earlier, and I think that's fitting, because SC5 and D3 are pioneering the future of digital distribution. Point and cluck your tongue all you want, but these two companies are working out the kinks of what will become common practice. These same people condeming innovation will be the ones to fall in line once the community at large starts seeing the benefit of an always-online player base: cheating will be cut down, people will play together more, and the community that you'll find yourself a part of will reflect more people like you - people who paid for the game because you support it's artists; people who want to play according to the rules and participate in something a little bit bigger then themselves.
So sure, feel free to jump on the bandwagon if it suits you. Judge the ambitious new trend that took a few attempts to hit it's stride. But soon enough, your kids will balk at the idea that people used to play games alone, cut off from their friends and peers.
I guarantee it.
No comments:
Post a Comment