Just wondering why a constant connection is needed?

It's hard to sell a new game if the old one is still alive and kicking. Requiring server access, even for SP, builds in a rather handy off-switch.

It's not unfortunate at all imo, it's a good thing.

Because even if everyone thought like that (aka had incredibly weak morals), its a self correcting system. You contribute to things you think have value, to preserve them for the future. Simple as that.

BTW money is only one way to contribute, of many. Different projects have different motivational requirements, but that's beside the point.

The main problem is that we've all been getting effed over by the big developers (chough* EA, Blizzard) who see their player base as a cash cow and nothing more.

Games like PA and KSP? I got no problem in supporting them. I didn't even think about pirating them. They are creating vast platforms for community content, providing regular feedback on the game status and in general, treating their players like human beings, and most importantly, had an idea at a value worth paying for.

Games like SPORE on the other hand, with its crazy drm protection, is just a challenge to the technically inclined to pirate it. Even if they don't even want to play it, it will get pirated, just to give the finger to EA.

what these big developers need to realize is that there is ALWAYS going to be some teenager in his parent's basement smarter than the drm guys who is more than willing to throw his crack up on a torrent site. You got to convince these people to buy it, not just stick a slightly higher number to the end of a title and charge $60+ for it. Seriously, how many sports games has EA released? ya, and how much new content do they contain...

and then they have the gall to complain about not making money. Sorry, that is called BUSINESS. If you can't convince people to buy your product, you have a bad product. If all file sharing sites got shut down overnight, the sales of these games would not increase much at all. If anything they would decrease as people got increasingly fed up.

/rant

I like how people are still trotting out Spore as an example, like every other game in existence made by the same developer or publisher (who don't even make the games . . .) is somehow the same game.

And while I don't like the sports franchises (they bore me), generally the updates provide new features, gameplay and graphics each year. There are exceptions, of course, but I seriously recommend you check your facts.

And seriously. EA is not a developer.

Okay so noobish-to-hell-question - but what is the difference? How much does EA being the publisher effect things like anti-piracy features? Do they get to set demands for what features must be incorporated, or have no say, and its just the developers they keep working with doing their own, horrid thing?

Also this isn't a thinly veiled sarcastic attack, but an honestly ignorant question (the tone of text is dicey at best so wanted to be clear).

Honestly? It depends.

A publisher provides the capital required to develop a game. As a matter of course, publishers then basically own the developers under their purview, and can eventually construct their own branded developer studios out of long-standing personell.

Publishers answer to investors, as a rule, and that's when we get into the wonderful world of finance and the stock market, which in general I despise and don't know a great deal about beyond the basics.

Publishers can (and do) enforce DRM restraints on their games. But this is also based on having to appear to do their level best to prevent piracy, because the investors still consider this a valid way to protect their sales. They do in music as well, even when music DRM has proven to not work for longer than video games have been a mainstream market.

Publishers do a lotta stupid ****. They're out of touch with developing trends on a number of levels, and they treat games development as a business to the exclusion of most other factors. However, without this attitude, they wouldn't secure the financial aid of their investors and we wouldn't get games anyway. Not from the publisher-developer model at least (and there are good publishers out there).

Developers also do a lot of stupid ****. Making a game is a learning experience. Managing a customer base is a learning experience. Deploying new technology is a learning experience. Mistakes are made.

Regardless, let's take an example. All of those sports games? Madden, FIFA, NFL, whatever? Even the yearly FPS favourites such as Call of Duty? They prop up the company (publisher) in terms of incoming revenue and contribute to the quarterly state of the company's finances.

Without these games? They wouldn't have the capital for the other games that they make. In EA's case, this is stuff like Battle for Middle Earth, perhaps Mass Effect, Dragon Age, you name it.

New IPs are a risk, because financially they don't make sense. They're more expensive to make, and generally have to be made from scratch. This is why you don't see publishers going for them, because publishers are generally beholden to the stock market that represents their value. If some investor thinks they're doing badly, the stock value ends up reflecting that. Which, ironically, makes other investors think they're doing badly. Which reflects on the stock value further. Which ends up killing companies (though stupid decisions don't help - see THQ and their uDraw product. Great publisher, dumb decision).

You pretty much described why gamers paying for that crud Battlefield and Call of Duty are screwing up anyone's chances for good games. As long as they keep making those bestsellers, as long as those games don't start becoming dangerous in sales and profit, they will keep being made. As long as those damn publishers can keep profiting from just those games, there is no incentive to make anything new. No new rts. No new rpg. No new engines, if you make another shooter like titanfall just add onto the call of duty engine (exaggeration). No new nothing. Recycled clone generic crap games for life.

The big publishers tend to play it safe. If you look at any industry, the biggest changes- the real innovators are usually smaller companies. That's the way you get noticed and break into a tough market place. Just look at Uber The big companies make what they know (Blizzard for example with Starcraft 2- don't get me wrong, nice game but it doesn't really do anything that wasn't done in Starcarft 1 or Warcraft 3). Uber, being a smaller company are more flexible and have allot to gain by taking a few risks and doing something new.

The other thing to remember- people like what they know. This is why Battlefield et al continue- and to be honest if that's what some people want then why not? There are enough people on this forum who would probably have been happy (happier even) with a pretty much direct remake of TA with shinny graphics and such but no actual novel features (e.g. the threads during Alpha about 'do we really need spherical maps' even though that was a cornerstone feature of PA from the word go).

Personally I like new and different so I'm very glad Uber are doing what their doing. I just wonder what would happen though if the next Battlefield game did something *truely* different- the current (large) fan base would undoubtedly throw teddies everywhere as they 'ruined' the franchise. I imagine the Battlefield devs are probably pretty fed up with redoing the same thing over and over- they are prisoners to their own success.