"EA boss boasts: 'I have not green lit one game to be developed as a singleplayer experience'"
Yep, and that, right there, is yet another reason in a very, very long list of reasons why EA sucks so damn much. I think that pretty much speaks for itself, so that's all I have to say about that.
On another topic semi-related to the above, however, it appears that Ubisoft just might be coming to their senses finally.[1] Given that Ubisoft was pretty much the first to champion this type of utterly retarded DRM scheme, it's nice that they're among the first to finally realize how fucking stupid it is (outside of those of us who knew how fucking stupid it was all along, of course). And who knows, maybe... just maybe... some of the "me too" copy-cats who jumped on the online-only bandwagon will come to their senses and follow this trend as well... ... ...HAHAHAHahahahahahaha... who am I kidding? Of course they won't. My first link up there proves that EA, at least, isn't planning to stop being retarded any time soon, and I doubt Blizzard is planning to drop the online-only bullshit on Diablo 3 for the foreseeable future either. *weary sigh*
[1] - They've gone back to "one-time" online activations. WELL NOW, THAT ISN'T SO BAD, IS IT? THAT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE, AMIRITE? Uh... yeah, I recall a time when people were completely up-in-arms over these "one-time" online activations as well[2], but now they apparently just blithely accept it because it's not as bad as the alternative. That dog turd sandwich served with steaming cat piss in a glass isn't so bad when you go back to serving it with iced lemonade instead of steaming cat piss, I guess? It's still a dog turd sandwich, though. *shrug*
[2] - I, on the other hand, apparently wasn't all that bothered by it, back in the day. My, oh my, how my sensibilities have changed since then. Well, actually, not so much. I still don't have as much of a problem with fire-and-forget "one-time" activations like this, same now as then, at least when compared to the absolutely asinine "online-only" bullshit anyway. But then, I guess that was my entire point in the previous footnote. Those things just don't seem so bad, considering that they came up with something that is so ludicrously worse to replace it, and then they placate everyone by going back to this not-so-bad-after-all-apparently bullshit, and everyone is lauding them for it. It's a crazy world we live in.[3]
[3] - Then again, I guess I shouldn't be so (hypo)critical of it, given how many Steam games I have now. >_>; Steam lets you play offline[4], but only after you activate the game at least once, so it's pretty much the same thing. And I know more than a few people who are adamantly opposed to Steam to this day for that very reason.
[4] - But only if you proactively set it up that way. If you're in online mode and your Internet suddenly cuts out for some reason and you haven't already set up the games to work in offline mode while you were online, you're still pretty much SOL, which is pretty crummy. Essentially, you have to already be in offline mode, or else you can't switch to offline mode when your Internet dies. I personally don't like running in offline mode, so I guess I'm one of the ones who will be SOL if my Internet cuts out and I want to play a game on Steam. (So, I guess that's what all my GOG games are for, then, since those work regardless of Internet status, aside from the initial required download of the installer.)[5]
[5] - I use way too many footnotes sometimes. ¬_¬
On another topic semi-related to the above, however, it appears that Ubisoft just might be coming to their senses finally.[1] Given that Ubisoft was pretty much the first to champion this type of utterly retarded DRM scheme, it's nice that they're among the first to finally realize how fucking stupid it is (outside of those of us who knew how fucking stupid it was all along, of course). And who knows, maybe... just maybe... some of the "me too" copy-cats who jumped on the online-only bandwagon will come to their senses and follow this trend as well... ... ...HAHAHAHahahahahahaha... who am I kidding? Of course they won't. My first link up there proves that EA, at least, isn't planning to stop being retarded any time soon, and I doubt Blizzard is planning to drop the online-only bullshit on Diablo 3 for the foreseeable future either. *weary sigh*
[1] - They've gone back to "one-time" online activations. WELL NOW, THAT ISN'T SO BAD, IS IT? THAT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE, AMIRITE? Uh... yeah, I recall a time when people were completely up-in-arms over these "one-time" online activations as well[2], but now they apparently just blithely accept it because it's not as bad as the alternative. That dog turd sandwich served with steaming cat piss in a glass isn't so bad when you go back to serving it with iced lemonade instead of steaming cat piss, I guess? It's still a dog turd sandwich, though. *shrug*
[2] - I, on the other hand, apparently wasn't all that bothered by it, back in the day. My, oh my, how my sensibilities have changed since then. Well, actually, not so much. I still don't have as much of a problem with fire-and-forget "one-time" activations like this, same now as then, at least when compared to the absolutely asinine "online-only" bullshit anyway. But then, I guess that was my entire point in the previous footnote. Those things just don't seem so bad, considering that they came up with something that is so ludicrously worse to replace it, and then they placate everyone by going back to this not-so-bad-after-all-apparently bullshit, and everyone is lauding them for it. It's a crazy world we live in.[3]
[3] - Then again, I guess I shouldn't be so (hypo)critical of it, given how many Steam games I have now. >_>; Steam lets you play offline[4], but only after you activate the game at least once, so it's pretty much the same thing. And I know more than a few people who are adamantly opposed to Steam to this day for that very reason.
[4] - But only if you proactively set it up that way. If you're in online mode and your Internet suddenly cuts out for some reason and you haven't already set up the games to work in offline mode while you were online, you're still pretty much SOL, which is pretty crummy. Essentially, you have to already be in offline mode, or else you can't switch to offline mode when your Internet dies. I personally don't like running in offline mode, so I guess I'm one of the ones who will be SOL if my Internet cuts out and I want to play a game on Steam. (So, I guess that's what all my GOG games are for, then, since those work regardless of Internet status, aside from the initial required download of the installer.)[5]
[5] - I use way too many footnotes sometimes. ¬_¬