Patriot
Active Member
While I completely agree with you on people having limited connections should still be able to play games, I think taking the stance that you are a thief is a bit more common than you may realize. Actually, it's not so much considering you a thief as it is considering you a potential threat. You will note that stores have scanners at their doors to determine when a product has been taken without being paid for. Do stores consider everyone who shops in them a thief? No, but they do consider everyone a potential threat. They need to protect themselves to produce a profit, remain competitive, and keep prices low for you as the consumer. By the same token, banks do not leave huge stacks of money sitting on the counter till you need to withdraw some. Instead, for every customer's protection, they lock the money in a vault and have security guards.Taking you last point, first, any system that starts from the point of accusing me that I'm a thief is automatically a BAD SYSTEM from my point of view. I do not appreciate the stance that these companies are taking in that they are actively hostile towards me as a gamer, customer and consumer of their product. . .So, even above and beyond the whole, calling paying users thieves (and remember, ONLY paying users will be afflicted with this horrible system--the pirates actually get to play offline) thing, there's still a large number of folks that don't have the dedicated internet that this system requires.
Gaming companies are no different. They provide a product. When that product is stolen or changed in a malicious way not only does the company suffer, but so does the consumer. Prices go up, cheaters proliferate on online games, etc.
As I said, I believe that games with a single player mode should be able to be played without an internet connection. But the company creating the game has the right to protect their product/investment which in turn provides protection to their consumers.