Yeah this is just a defence of deep-rooted anti-consumer practices thats generalizing the issue.

There are multiple types of online-dependent games, so i will do the world a favor and categorize them here, along with viable solutions to prevent their current inevitable unplayability(sticking to PC games for simplicity):

1. Single player games (no continuous server dependence, but launching the game has online-only DRM).

-The dev baked in this online requirement solely to prevent piracy. There is no necessary data being exchanged with a server in order for the game to continuously operate, other than the anti-piracy measures. This means that all a developer needs to do is patch the launcher/game files to not require the online connection, and the game will work fine. Some examples of this anti-piracy software are Denuvo, or Games for Windows Live. In the case of GFWL, anyone who owned a game that required that software to play, can no longer do so as the service has shut down. When denuvo shuts down their servers, those games will be unplayable also.

The solution so far has been to pirate. The community has made their own patches, simple or not, to continue to play games without unnecessary server dependence. This effort should be on the developers.

-Examples -DRM: —GTA V -rockstar game launcher —Diablo 2 Resurrected -Blizzard launcher —Resident Evil 4 Remake -Denuvo —Gears of War(2009 PC) -GFWL (now unplayable without modifying software) —Chronicles of Riddick, AoDA -TAGES (now unplayable without modifying software)

2. Multiplayer games with dedicated servers.

-Most of these games have no option to host a local server, and playing matches alone, split screen or with a friend on your network requires connection to an online server. This has been an intentional design choice for the passed decade or so. Multiplayer games used to come with local or private server hosting baked in, which required no dev-hosted online server connection to continue playing indefinitely.

The solution is more locally/privately host-able servers for multiplayer games. This needs to become the norm again, and has to be implemented as a choice by developers. These games dont need to be redesigned from the ground up for this to work usually either

-Examples -server type: —Halo CE -private/lan servers 👍 —Halo MCC -Dedicated servers, lan requires online connection 👎 —Battlefield 3,4,1,5,2042 -dedicated servers, bf3 was just sunset 👎 —Battlefield 2/1942/Vietnam -Lan AND bots in servers offline 👍 —Call of Duty’s -up until MW2019 they all had robust offline modes that allowed offline lan play, many had bots and zombies modes too 👍 but MW2019 and after have such egregious Blizzard DRM and the game content is an absolute mess, even pirates have a hard time cracking them 👎 —Quake 1-3, CS 1.6/Source, Unreal Tournaments - the quintessential multiplayer format with private lan servers, these came out in the golden era of multiplayer games 👍

3. Server dependent games. (Service games usually)

-This category clumps in MMO, Service, PvP and PvE games together. Data must be passed between players and servers in order for the game to operate properly. Again, this is merely a design choice and not the only way that game could ever be developed in many scenarios, but there are games whose data/processing cannot be hosted locally because of their complexity, such as some MMO’s. This server dependence is prevalent in Service games today because the servers tell the account/game what items they have purchased with real money, all of that is tracked and regulated by the developers in order to, you guessed it, continue to make more money.

There are 2 solutions here… Either design the game so it can also be played without server dependence from the beginning(which in many cases is entirely feasable, but devs prefer you to be always connected to their store to be able to buy more microtransactions)… Or when the game is not financially viable to justify server upkeep, a version of the game or server is released to the public. Yes yes devs dont want to give out their source code and this option requires the most development time, but it prevents people who paid for/into a game from loosing access to it forever.

-Examples -Fixes: —Shatterline -singleplayer version released on steam after online service was sunset 👍 (not free) —Spellbreak -devs released files so players could run their own server once their servers were closed 👍 (free) —World of Warcraft -they would have to do the same as spellbreak, if this game ever shuts down —Anthem -sunset happening in a month or so, no plan to make playable offline/without EA servers, needs dev time👎 —Battleborn -servers taken offline after 4.5 years and i have missed it ever since, needed dev time to work offline 👎 —The Crew -sparked the Stop Killing Games movement with its end, Ubisoft has no plans for an offline patch 👎 (although they do with The Crew 2 👍)

It is important to remember that most(almost all) PC games today bought via Steam, Epic, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Rockstar or EA stores all require an online account to be able to play the games youve bought there, whether or not the games are then playable offline after purchase. Those games are dependent on those online stores in order to access those games if you alter your hardware or software and need to redownload those games, you will need to go through those launcher’s DRM. Some of those launchers won’t let games launch offline ever, as i mentioned in section 1.

GOG and a few DRM free Steam games are some of the only ways to purchase games that have no online dependence once downloaded.

The takeaway here is that many online-only requirements function at best as a means to preserve a distributor’s bottom line and at worst as a form of planned obsolescence that eventually takes away a good you paid for, leaving you with the option of buying the remake, sequel, or another game entirely(like the devs/publishers want).

Here’s to hoping the EU is going to take consumer interests seriously and impose some new rules around game preservation on these money focused companies.

1. Yes, in order to download your “Game Keycard” games, you must get the game data from nintendo online services. This is why banning online services is considered effectively bricking the console, at least for all 3rd party games on keycards.

2. If an account is banned, another one can be made for free and the user can keep utilizing their online services… Nintendo obviously looks at that like a burden, and wants to financially punish that user, making them have to buy another switch. This in turn benefits them.

Not that this is what youre looking for, but Olauncher has done a great job of keeping me from being too distracted by my phone. All apps are in a text list, no colorful icons or red dots to grab your attention when they shouldnt.

Its surprisingly intuitive to use too.

The comparison is more akin to how they have actually restored the mona lisa with chemical and color correction as a means to make it withstand the test of time. Thats essentially what has happened with the remastered version of this game.

I understand that in other instances, remasters and remakes might as well be a different game, but if you have played crysis, this is barely the case.

Im not saying its fine to lose access to original data. All im saying is in this particular case, there isnt much loss to be outraged about. The publishers havent un-alived the IP. We have just lost access to some historical data.

I am all for preservation. I dont want to underplay the detriments of lost data. I just want to subjectively quantify this loss.

If there was no alternative, and debatably superior, version of the game currently available then this might be an issue. But there is, so the preservation of the IP is hardly jeopardized.

Theyre way behind the power curve with this one. GOG has had better multi-store integration for a while. I am surprised that steam is even lacking on this.

Microsoft needs to make it so i never need to go into the steam app or the GOG app, and so i never want to, to play all my games. Thats the way to win and become number 1.

Really if Play anywhere expands retroactively like 360 backwards compatibility did… They will have another great PR boom that brings users like myself back to their storefronts.

I have to stop holding my breath for the xbox console library to gain cross compatibility though. Theres no way the Play anywhere program comes close to compensating for all of the classics locked to their consoles. If cross compatibility never happens i will feel slighted as a previous xbox user with a huge library of games.

I know i want to buy/play this so bad… But denuvo.

Offline play with bots, not server dependent… Its a multiplayer game with mtx. Its not an Online-Only service game.

You could consider it a service game of sorts, but it isnt the toxic sludge that Destiny 2 and Marathon are/could have been.

Agreed. I would love it if they took all the assets and the engine and made a great campaign actually grounded in the marathon universe. Thats what i would pay for.

Tbh, its probably too late for bungie. All that company is, is a name.

What they need is to make a completely different game.

Destiny was successful because it was the first real fps service game, it didnt push mtx, and had competent pve, pvp and a story(debatably). Bungie cant chase that dragon anymore. Its been done a million times now.

Players know all service games want is to milk them with mtx. No player wants to get into a new service game especially when its nothing unique.

Just make a good single and multiplayer shooter with a somewhat interesting story, then people will buy and play it.

It seems so easy, but AAA pubs and devs cant pull their heads out of their own asses to see what players want. They just see what investors want.

There, dead horse kicked again.

Im very glad they are… But this effort just negates their last push for backwards compatibility on the xbox console.

I am sure they see the value in merging that library into their PC library. Tbh they will probably choose the lazy route and stick to streaming xbox-only games to PC because it requires no extra planning. Even the streaming process is a convoluted mess though with only certain games/publishers giving their games permission to stream. I am never allowed to stream every game i want for arbitrary reasons, and i dont like that when i have already bought the game.

Xbox wants to move away from local processing anyhow because it funnels users into their beloved subscription model.

I see your point with the millions that play those specific games, maybe i am just disappointed by microsoft only doing the bare minimum when they are forced to.

This is at least progress

What do you mean? Gamepass users? You can use gamepass on ANY device, including steamdeck. Idk if paying another $500-$1000 usd is worth it for most people to have a slightly more convenient gamepass handheld experience.

Oh and about the potential for native Xbox games running on PC handhelds… God i hope youre right.

I mean if they really nail the UI, and i mean REALLY nail it(which involves nailing game/launcher compatibility as well)…

Then maybe this handheld will forge the way for a new windows gaming OS.

But even then without an Xbox game compatibility layer, they arent going to convert any steam users at all.

Is it good enough for you? Is that why you will get it? Where are these people you speak of…?

I highly doubt there are enough people that want that super particular use case to make this particular handheld stand out at all, especially ones that didnt meet their needs with another handheld already.

What a weak sell then, i understand your point, i just wish Xbox came out swinging with a compatibility layer for the Xbox game library. A portable device with that capability would have the potential to put them back on top.

Instead we get a less bad version of windows, that will likely be inferior to its direct competitor(steamOS) anyways, sans the ability to play a few multiplayer games.

I see no reason to believe it wont be.

Yeah it can be a hassle, but is it such a hassle people would rather buy this specific handheld to play the handful of multiplayer games a steamdeck cant?

Not to mention theyre mainly esports titles that people prefer not to play on an underpowered handheld anyways…

Unfortunately, it does not.

Im holding my breath hoping Xbox is smart enough to realize they need to merge their PC and Xbox game stores… But the technical overhead required to do such a thing probably means they wont, even though theyre the only company that could pull it off.

Not pursuing this will mean the death of Xbox hardware, mark my words.

A steam deck already plays gamepass, and if you install windows on the deck, it will the few windows-only PC games that SteamOS cant.