Client-Server != DRM

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Saturday, March 23, 2013, 04:49 (4272 days ago) @ Claude Errera

I think I'd also argue that #1 (or maybe #2 - not sure which perspective makes more sense) is in question - I think I would say that some of the game code is ON the server, so your Xbox/PS3/whatever can't actually execute all of the code by itself.

Yup! I think that the game servers are offloading some of the complex calculations needed to simulate the other regional cities...

Oh, wait. Wrong game.

There's a useful distinction to be made between the obvious and sensible skepticism about the particulars of how a feature which has been announced, but not described in detail, will be implemented-- and wilful ignorance.

What we've been told is:

1) Always online required
2) Solo play possible

In addition, we've been described:

3) a scenario that boils down to seamless drop-in, drop-out coop without menu interaction.

From this I think I can draw a valid conclusion that is similar to Cody's, and it runs like this:

If a primary purpose of #1 is to implement #3, but a player chooses instead to pursue #2, then:

#1 operates in a way that is functionally indistinguishable from DRM with regard to #2; that is, it prevents play that is technically possible by enforcing a strictly non-technical requirement.

Now, is it possible that other legitimate game design reasons exist for #1? Sure.

Do we know everything about Destiny yet? No, of course not.

However, I think it's a fair bet that the picture above is complete enough to draw the reasonable conclusion that for people who opt out of the network features and play solo, the always-on requirement ends up functioning the same as DRM: it stops you from playing a game you've bought in a manner that would technically be possible if not for the arbitrary always online requirement. That may or may not mean the connection is being used for other purposes-- anti-cheating, anti-piracy-- but it's DRM no matter how one looks at it.t