Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Mar 2013 14:46 UTC
Games "To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity. That it might be considered in any way controversial to call them out on their crap, to point out that no, always-on DRM is not an advantage to anyone, is bewildering. It's a sign of just how far the gaming world has fallen into the rabbit hole of the publisher's burrowing." As usual, RPS hits the nail on the head so hard it shoots through the board.
Permalink for comment 555191
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Technical Stuff!
by Brendan on Tue 12th Mar 2013 06:48 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Imagine you're writing a multi-player online game. You're going to get "shared state" (this can't be avoided). The end result is that a lot of things that effect the shared state (things like AI, weather, etc) are going to be done at the server. The client is just there for user input and output.

Now imagine that you want to add a single-player capability to the multi-player online game. Do you:

a) duplicate all of the game's logic in the client (creating a lot more work and bloat)

b) give the end user a copy of the server, where "single-player" means running a local server (increasing work and documentation/support/updates and code portability hassles)

c) make "single-player mode" re-use the existing servers

In my opinion, the first option is a mistake. The second option is the best option for small games developers (where the cost of running their own servers is costly). The third option makes the most sense for someone like EA, even if you don't take into account any of the DRM/piracy issues at all.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2