Namrok wrote on 2024-08-24, 14:26:

I wanted an offline Diablo 3

Well, the console versions of Diablo 3 don't require an internet connection for the single-player campaign. Just goes to show how idiotic those "server reliance" excuses were that Blizzard was initially using to justify the "always online" DRM of the PC version.

On that note, I found that many PC games from the 2007-2014 period that require online activation/DRM have Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 versions which happily run without an internet connection. Obviously, there are some downsides to those ports, such as being limited to 720p @ 30 FPS, but at least you can just pop in the disc and play them.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-08-24, 14:39:

Namrok wrote on 2024-08-24, 14:26:

I wanted an offline Diablo 3

Well, the console versions of Diablo 3 don't require an internet connection for the single-player campaign. Just goes to show how idiotic those "server reliance" excuses were that Blizzard was initially using to justify the "always online" DRM of the PC version.

On that note, I found that many PC games from the 2007-2014 period that require online activation/DRM have Xbox 360/PlayStation 3 versions which happily run without needing an internet connection. Obviously, there are some downsides to those ports, such as being limited to 720p @ 30 FPS, but at least you can just pop in the disc and play them.

Running those through emulators (with forced higher resolution scaling and FPS limit patches or even inter-frame interpolation, when feasible) might be an avenue.

darry wrote on 2024-08-24, 14:47:

Running those through emulators (with forced higher resolution scaling and FPS limit patches or even inter-frame interpolation, when feasible) might be an avenue.

From what I gather, it's even simpler for backward compatible games, as you can just pop an Xbox 360 disc into your Xbox Series X and get improved visuals and performance.

Now, I don't currently own a Series X, but from what I've seen in YouTube videos, some supported games (not all) have their resolution increased to 4K and their performance boosted to 60 FPS. I think these are in the minority though, but that kind of support still makes me want to buy a Series X console at some point.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2024-08-24, 14:54:

From what I gather, it's even simpler for backward compatible games, as you can just pop an Xbox 360 disc into your Xbox Series X and get improved visuals and performance.

Sure, as soon as it finishes downloading an image of the game recompiled to run on the newer console... because that's how it works, it's not emulating the original game that was made for a completely different CPU architecture. The disc is just used as an access mechanism.

jmarsh wrote on 2024-08-24, 15:04:

Sure, as soon as it finishes downloading an image of the game recompiled to run on the newer console... because that's how it works, it's not emulating the original game that was made for a completely different CPU architecture. The disc is just used as an access mechanism.

Indeed, that unfortunately goes against the "games should be playable offline" requirement. It's too bad they didn't use emulation, as that would have opened up a much larger pool of games.

My point was just that you can get enhanced visuals for certain Xbox games by playing them on a newer console.

My take on modern DRM falls under that whole "cooperate greed" thing, but only in so much as they can take the item protected by that DRM away at any time, for just about any reason, with little to no recourse for you, and require a persistent online connection to even launch the game.

Since I'm in the US, I can only speak to US laws, but a common misconception is that if you purchase a movie, TV series, or in most cases, a piece of software for example, you don't actually own it, you're paying for the right to use it under the terms and conditions of those who do actually own it. It's been like that for a very long time. Technically speaking, those mix tapes we all used to make were illegal, but back then the technology to stop people from making them, or copying rented movies, really didn't exist. It wasn't practical or cost effective to enforce it unless you were selling them in mass for profit.

Fast forward a bit and publishers started toying with different ideas and technologies to try and hinder the copying. In terms of software, that started with simple ad campaigns and warnings "don't copy that floppy!" and things like codes needed from some material in the game packaging to get the game to work. From there it just evolved to things like trying to make the media itself harder to copy, hardware locks, and one-time activation just to name a few, eventually evolving into what we know today as DRM.

I don't mind the idea of DRM and fully support the rights of a developer (or any content creator) to protect their property from what really amounts to piracy. The part I don't like is the fact your ability to use that content, within the guidelines of the law, can be taken away for any reason what so ever. Short of online-only games, I'm a firm believer that no game should require a persistent online connection to work. Here in the US, just about all rights sit with the publisher, not the user. The problem is, your big studios and publishers use that for far more than just copy protection.

As I sit here and type all this out, I have to admit that I'm a huge supporter of the Steam platform, the biggest DRM platform there is. In my 18+ years on the platform, I've rarely had many issues. Yes, these days many games require you to be online to launch them, but there are many that run just fine offline. Steam (Valve) seems to focus more heavily on the copy protection aspect of DRM than anything else, and for me that's good enough, like I said, I fully support developer rights and they should get paid for their work. I have games in my library that have been abandoned a long time by whoever made them, and can no longer be purchased, but I can still download and play them. In today's world, I think that's the best we can ask for. GOG is great, and I use them a lot, but their library is limited so I only use them for "older" games.

Sorry about the long reply, I guess I'm feeling a bit long-winded today. 😜

Download size and system requirements are the reasons why I don't play modern games. I'm still on DSL, and I don't want a space heater for a GPU, especially with the past three summers all being the hottest summers on record. My fastest GPU is an Nvidia T1000.

RandomStranger wrote on 2024-08-24, 08:59:

oldhighgerman wrote on 2024-08-23, 17:45:

Why hate a game? No one forces you to play it.

Because if it's financially successful the industry will follow it and the whole industry gets worse.

It seems like everyone has run out of ideas, so whenever someone actually has a new idea (good or bad, and they're almost always bad), everyone just copies it. It isn't just games, either.

- Huge size
- Pornographic price tags
- Bad development
- Performance
- Need of a high end desktop to play
- Constant desktop upgrades to play new versions
- DLCs and Pay to Win features
- Toxic online fanbase

And a lot more... This made me give up on modern sim racing games and go back to old rFactor and MicroProse Grand Prix releases. Cost? $0.00

Coming from DOS era gaming, I find it hard to believe that I actually love the 16-color EGA graphics of Sierra classics to current "photorealistic" games eating up hundreds of GBs of hard drive space, requires a hefty GPU and CPU to run these at maxed out settings to really appreciate the "photorealism".......

Whereas old games that only came on 360kb and 720kb floppy disks are much much much more enjoyable to play and replay again and again.

The way they drew the babes in Leisure Suit Larry 1 AGI version, using lower resolution for example... I always wondered how they managed to do that.

I recently am going through the Space Quest series from SQ1 and now in SQ4. Loved how they managed doing the shadowing under darker areas for the main character when moving around in 16-color EGA SQ3.

And let's not forget the countless number of hours that can be put into Ultima VI and VII, SSI's AD&D games, Microprose's strategy and simulation games.

All came in mere floppies.

Heck, I still play the single floppy disk games - GODS, and Risky Woods every now and then when I want a quick thrill.

Games (commercial) that give you grand enjoyment for 1MB or less (Megabyte for current gen kids) are impossible nowadays.

Games nowadays mostly fall into a FPS or 3rd-person over the shoulder action games or sequels of sequels milked to death (*cough*...Call of *cough*) or remakes of classic games themselves. Mostly it seems because either they have run out of ideas or current gaming scene is dominated by marketing CEOs hiring programmers who only program according to the CEOs' wants. There is no passion in developing the games like those days.

Modern EA Sports FC 2024 (supposed to be the "new" FIFA) has some serious shit, man. Including pay to win stuff and DLCs. I just want to play a friendly with my friends the way we want, with the teams we want, the players we want them to have.

The only way we have to do it as of now is playing older FIFA titles like FIFA 98 RTWC and FIFA 99. And you can bet, these are more enjoyable than that. Even the controls are easier for me.

Modern MSFS 2020 requires a hell of a super computer to run; I am fine playing MSFS 2004 or 2000, or even MSFS 98. It's the experience of piloting a plane that counts not a (censored) photorealistic set based on a huge map downloaded in GBs to your poor 1TB SSD.