Support NeoGAF

[Aaron]

I can not wait until the pissing and moaning about DRM fad has passed.

It's fad to complain about things you buy not working? I really don't understand the defense for this. It's not like people's connections are bad. This is all on EA for not providing enough servers to launch their damn game, and this isn't even the first time they've done this.

Reviewers should see how things work under real world conditions. That kinect Steel Battalion game seemed to work fine in an environment prepared for it by the publisher, but in the average apartment or home it was flat out broken.

 

[davepoobond]

Reviewers should see how things work under real world conditions. That kinect Steel Battalion game seemed to work fine in an environment prepared for it by the publisher, but in the average apartment or home it was flat out broken.

i think you just created a concept for a game review site. go do it, and i'll help

 

[cutmeamango]

Absolutely. If you have a small apartment, and then this huge box arrives with a controller you can't fit anywhere, then it will impact your ability to play the game properly. Especially if you weren't following the game well, and didn't realize it came with a controller.

To turn that on it's head, the new Steel Battalion is kinect, but since kinect is a terrible lump of bad hardware, it plays awfully. Probably shouldn't mention that in the review since that's just the fault of the hardware, and not the game itself.

For the first:
Small apartments: 6.2
Big apartments: 9.8
Studios: 3.0
? A review can warn you about necessary peripherals and optimal conditions, but it is a baseless criticism unless these conditions offer a considerable challenge to be met. And even so I would only converge the criticism to the game, if said peripheral is the only possible way to play it.

As for the second, it follows the first.
If Kinect is the only way you can play it, it will directly influence (user control inputs) the game mechanics, consequently, playability. So it does affect the game.

 

[googleplex]

You can buy a car made from the best parts in the world, but if it doesn't start it's still a shitty car.

Oh god! Such a terrible goddamned analogy I actually laughed.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

The temporary score change seems like such a weird arbitrary decision. I'd love to read their reasoning for that. They should have just put a warning on the review until the server issues get fixed.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

i bought an xbox360 game for my PS3 and it didnt work.

DRM!!!!!!

I have no clue how this relates to this situation, but okay?

 

[Perkel]

i would say they're not representative. there is a conflict of interest if you are a reviewer that has public relations with a company that you rely on to give you games to review more. i felt the pressure when i was doing reviews on a more consistent basis at a small site, but I tried to not let it affect my judgment. No one put the pressure on me but myself, since i was in a higher-level position, so just imagine what that is like for some staff writer who has an editor in chief who makes it a point to stay in the good graces of a publisher.



most of the time they play their preferred console and then duplicate the review for the other consoles. They reviewed the game on Xbox and then post it up for PC and PS3. No one has time to review the same game 3 times.




i'll also let you in on another secret -- game reviewers don't always get versions of the game with the DRM integrated into it, so they may not even encounter those things.

they aren't "always" reviewing a true retail product. they are reviewing something "representative" of the review product. There's a specific name for it that escapes me at the moment.




absolutely not. I can read MacBeth on the computer in PDF form that i got from Google Books for free. I make no mention of the delivery system and I didn't even buy it. How is that automatically a product review? It is a literary review.

What you said is true i can confirm it since i was reviewing games for smaller polish site and i know what a fucking pile of shit it is being small site. EA by far are worst offender being small site.

As of what you said.

We should ask "Who is reviewer ?" Reviewer is person which review products (be it art or consumer products) for his readers.

If you are not doing it you are not reviewer simple as that.
Review copies are by far the worst thing that happen in industry same with reviews before games are released.

Review coppy is like making review of Ferrari car where Ferrari team is giving you two cars for review. One for corners and one for straight.

 

[maverick40]

This thread is not about giving games that I don't like high scores.

IT'S ABOUT NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANTI-CONSUMER STANCES THAT THESE GAMES TAKE IN THEIR REVIEW SCORES.

Who cares man? The publishers are making money by doing these stances so thet are not going to change.

 

[Tain]

Absolutely. If you have a small apartment, and then this huge box arrives with a controller you can't fit anywhere, then it will impact your ability to play the game properly. Especially if you weren't following the game well, and didn't realize it came with a controller.

To turn that on it's head, the new Steel Battalion is kinect, but since kinect is a terrible lump of bad hardware, it plays awfully. Probably shouldn't mention that in the review since that's just the fault of the hardware, and not the game itself.

In this case, it's actually impossible to play Kinect Steel Battalion with a perfectly functional controller right now. If an amazing backwards compatible future Kinect comes out and the game is revealed as a masterpiece, that means a magical input-detatched review would be the better one, but literally nobody can play a reliable version of the game. It's the best review we can possibly write right now.

With a review of the original it would make perfect sense to mention the size of the controller, or even warn some of the less fortunate about it, but suggesting that critics are obligated to rank a game lower on the basis that some can't play it is pretty much an admission that focused criticism isn't worth anything and all critics should try to evaluate from the perspective of everyone rather than successfully evaluate from their own. It makes about as much sense as using a game's low price or underdog development history as justification for ranking a game higher (which happens all the fucking time).

 

[IrishNinja]

the lengths/analogies some of you are grabbing to justify why a piece of interactive software which cannot be interacted with at the time of review = somehow isn't worth mentioning feels like a bold new plateau of sophistry

To turn that on it's head, the new Steel Battalion is kinect, but since kinect is a terrible lump of bad hardware, it plays awfully. Probably shouldn't mention that in the review since that's just the fault of the hardware, and not the game itself.

precisely this. with respect to context here: i clearly have no idea where some of you draw the line for what constitutes a proper review. leaving off important information like this is at best poor/negligent, and at worst, covering for a company of your choice.

 

[Perkel]

People lol at "game journalism" exactly because if someone want to know real review they go to GAF or other gaming boards because they give clearer picture what to expect when you buy certain game.

"gaming journalism" will become even more funny joke on gaming forums the more reviewers will be disconnected with their readers.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

It's not even about judging from the perspective of everyone, it's about judging from what amounts to an entirely different set of circumstances than any regular consumer will find themselves in.

 

[Trey]

...and the roads were built by the car manufacturer AND you are only allowed to drive on those shitty roads.

When reviewing a game, what do you take into consideration? The game alone, or its facilities in part?

For example: Should Tomb Raider be marked down until its crashing problem for a sizable portion of PC gamers is resolved?

There's no definite answer for this I feel.

 

[davepoobond]

It's not even about judging from the perspective of everyone, it's about judging from what amounts to an entirely different set of circumstances than any regular consumer will find themselves in.

you mean consumers dont get games for free and get paid to play the game?

 

[IrishNinja]

For example: Should Tomb Raider be marked down until its crashing problem for a sizable portion of PC gamers is resolved?

yes? i mean, why wouldn't you? this is akin to PS3 Skyrim in its early/broken days, where that was either not discussed or given the benefit of the doubt (while SH collection thankfully didn't see this), or game saves breaking in Walking Dead.

at the very least, if you still disagree dinging a point or two for such core problems, i cannot fathom people arguing such details shouldn't be discussed/made an issue of in such reviews.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

you mean consumers dont get games for free and get paid to play the game?

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with this situation.

The issue is that EA set up something specifically for reviewers that constitutes a much different playing environment than the one that all other people attempting to play this game find themselves in.

Therein lies the issue, and the reason why many sites have refrained from posting reviews as of yet.

 

[syllogism]

Even if you accept the notion that service downtime should factor into review score, it's difficult to determine how. Should reviewers wait a few days to see whether the launch goes smoothly? What if it doesn't, but the issues get quickly resolved? It's also possible that these issues do not materialize until much later; certainly it shouldn't matter to the consumer whether it happens on day 1 or day 15. What then? Until the actual impact is known, the game/service requiring the user to be always online isn't an objective flaw, but something that only inconveniences certain, these days likely a small one, segment of potential customers. Perhaps the review should make clear what the possible implications of the online requirement are, but that's about it.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

When reviewing a game, what do you take into consideration? The game alone, or its facilities in part?

For example: Should Tomb Raider be marked down until its crashing problem for a sizable portion of PC gamers is resolved?

There's no definite answer for this I feel.

Your example is a bit more difficult because not every PC gamer is having that problem and the game will no doubt be patched. With DRM it affects every PC gamer and it likely will never be patched out.

I think a reviewer should take the entire experience into account. Was there slowdown or did the game run smooth? Music good or bad, graphics, controls and DRM because DRM is part of the game.

 

[madmackem]

Wait reviews are just one persons opinion on the game, i think people play up the other aspects too far. I played through and loved games people go nuts about things like microtransactions in and they never bothered me in the slightest. Unless its game breaking or effects the reviewers enjoyment of the game i dont see why it should be brought up.

 

[syllogism]

Your example is a bit more difficult because not every PC gamer is having that problem and the game will no doubt be patched. With DRM it affects every PC gamer and it likely will never be patched out.

I think a reviewer should take the entire experience into account. Was there slowdown or did the game run smooth? Music good or bad, graphics, controls and DRM because DRM is part of the game.

Always online requirement does not adversely affect every PC gamer, unless there is service downtime. I never have any issues with my internet connection and I only game on my desktop PC. It's completely irrelevant to me whether the game requires me to be online or not unless, again, there is service downtime.

Should the fact a PC game requires high end hardware factor into the score?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Always online requirement does not adversely affect every PC gamer, unless there is service downtime. I never have any issues with my internet connection and I only game on my desktop PC.

It affects every PC gamer and whether you like it or hate it, you are still required to experience the DRM every single time you start the game. Now when the servers or your own internet go down then you will see the worst side of it but even when you can connect, the issue is that you have to for single player games.

As more and more games adopt the always online model, your chances increase of running into server maintenance or your own internet outage. What of people with poor internet? Should they be told to find another hobby because publishers think we are all nasty pirates?

 

[Perkel]

Always online requirement does not adversely affect every PC gamer, unless there is service downtime. I never have any issues with my internet connection and I only game on my desktop PC. It's completely irrelevant to me whether the game requires me to be online or not unless, again, there is service downtime.

Should the fact a PC game requires high end hardware factor into the score?

If there is no hardware that can play that game at stable framerate then YES.

 

[Trey]

A note of any DRM in a game would be reasonable. It's not universally regarded in such a manner as to carry objective review penalties.

 

[davepoobond]

If there is no hardware that can play that game at stable framerate then YES.

what would it matter if there was even only 1 computer that could? it wouldn't be indicative of a greater whole's experience, yet the one computer you are using has absolutely no framerate issues.

so what then? should you give the game a 0 because you're the only one in the world that can play it?

 

[Nose Master]

It's fad to complain about things you buy not working? I really don't understand the defense for this. It's not like people's connections are bad. This is all on EA for not providing enough servers to launch their damn game, and this isn't even the first time they've done this.

Reviewers should see how things work under real world conditions. That kinect Steel Battalion game seemed to work fine in an environment prepared for it by the publisher, but in the average apartment or home it was flat out broken.

Yeah, reviewers should conduct a network stress test with every game that has online-DRM. You're right, that is completely feasible.

It's a fad to act as if game publishers are doing such a grave disservice to use the internet (which most PCs are perpetually connected to) to verify legitimate copies. It's a fad to complain about console games only having certain content when you buy the game new. It's a fad to completely ignore the reality of the ridiculous cost and risk of every video game release, and that DRM is necessary.

If you don't like their DRM practices, don't buy their games. They'll start to notice if you actually back up your apparent disgust with your wallet. Sales speak a lot louder than forum posts.

I can't believe Polygon actually retroactively changed their score because of launch day hiccups.

 

[Perkel]

what would it matter if there was even only 1 computer that could? it wouldn't be indicative of a greater whole's experience, yet the one computer you are using has absolutely no framerate issues.

so what then? should you give the game a 0 because you're the only one in the world that can play it?

You missed my point. Hardware that gets into final score is handbrake same as bug which don't allow you finish game.

If newest game req. GTX680 then it should be said in review with bold font that game requires at least 680 to play. If best consumer cards struggle to reach 15-20 on low then it should be included in final score since it is game clearly not created for consumers.

 

[Aaron]

Yeah, reviewers should conduct a network stress test with every game that has online-DRM. You're right, that is completely feasible.

Could they wait a few hours before publishing their review to see how the game actually plays when it's released to the public? Unpossible!

It's a fad to act as if game publishers are doing such a grave disservice to use the internet (which most PCs are perpetually connected to) to verify legitimate copies. It's a fad to complain about console games only having certain content when you buy the game new. It's a fad to completely ignore the reality of the ridiculous cost and risk of every video game release, and that DRM is necessary.

This is not the consumer's problem. It's also a little hard for me to have sympathy for EA when they have a habit of sacking developers left and right. While a fad is something that's popular for a brief period of time, and complaining is always going to be popular.

I can't believe Polygon actually retroactively changed their score because of launch day hiccups.

I can't believe you're just ignoring that EA had the power to avoid these hiccups. They could judge the demand based on preorders while knowing people would pick it up on release. They already went through this song and dance with KOTOR, but decided to screw over their most eager consumers for the sake of saving money on server rentals. It was their choice to go cheap, and they should take the hit in the reviews in result.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

A note of any DRM in a game would be reasonable. It's not universally regarded in such a manner as to carry objective review penalties.

That's how I feel. I just don't think reviews are the place to have a discussion about DRM unless it is a consistent, constant, permanent hindrance on a game's experience. That isn't to say SimCity should get a pass for being inaccessible right now. But I don't think the answer is to dock it a few points, because if you can't play the game, even an 8 is too high.

If anything, just take down the review temporarily and replace it with an article or disclaimer about how the game's DRM is keeping people from playing the game and give it an incomplete or 0. Taking 1.5 points away from its score and holding it ransom is just stupid to me.

Optional microtransactions that affect gameplay decisions and game design?

Diablo 3 is next to unbeatable on Nightmare without purchasing things from the Real Money Auction house.

If you replaced "Nightmare" with "Inferno" and removed "Real Money", you would have a point.

 

[Boss Doggie]

For me, it is anti-consumerist if it wasn't "locked" for "payment" in its previous iteration. A lot of the entries deemed "anti-consumerist" belong to it.

 

[mclem]

You can buy a car made from the best parts in the world, but if it doesn't start it's still a shitty car.

Or, as I like to call it, "The Alfa Romeo Analogy"

 

[R1CHO]

They just don't give a shit about that kind of stuff, for them the game is free, they play the press beta and all that crap.

Don't go to that kind of web looking for consumer friendly advice.

 

[Nose Master]

This is not the consumer's problem. It's also a little hard for me to have sympathy for EA when they have a habit of sacking developers left and right. While a fad is something that's popular for a brief period of time, and complaining is always going to be popular.

This mindset is immature. You shouldn't expect that video games are a constant, and that they'll always magically continue. Development studios are closing left and right. Every single time that a new idea for revenue (or protection of their product) is introduced, it's met with this attitude. Even the mere existence of optional pay DLC is offensive. It is this type of mindset that will turn the gaming industry as a whole into a app-store ghetto.

EA stays strong because it takes the necessary steps to ensure their business can continue. Which, if you're not understanding, means more AAA video games keep coming. Unless you're fine with playing Victoria Justice's Angry Birds instead of the $60 quality titles you're used to, realize what it costs. If and when they step over the line (in the case of Sim City's botched launch), remember that the next time you go to make a purchase from that specific company. You don't always need to play the newest game the minute it's released. You could have waited for Polygon's knee-jerk reaction to this problem to buy it, for instance.

 

[andymonza]

Ok, so here's the thing. I agree on the general concept that reviews should be read in their full extent, and focusing on the score alone is just worth nothing, but, if a website/magazine chooses to support a scoring system in their review policy (and puts graphical emphasis on it), then that number must be very carefully thought out.
Let's take the last Call of Duty entry, that scored an 8 on Polygon, being reviewed on "debug machines set up by Treyarch". I suppose that, after the game release, someone at Polygon kept playing the game, maybe to check everything was ok in the retail copies, maybe just because he enjoys COD (ah well, I realize now that they promised to update the review in the League Play paragraph, which they didn't, but whatever).
Let's say he tries the PS3 version, and whoa!, nothing works. Lag, disconnections, League Play broken, and all the stuff you surely know about. So what? Go back, give it TWO scores, one for Xbox and PC, and the other one (lowered to 6,5) for PS3?
This thing about updating scores just doesn't work, in my opinion.
Simcity scored 9,5, now sits on an 8, and if the servers get fixed will be probably back on 9,5.
Isn't this confusing? I mean, you, reviewer, consider the server issues a compromising factor, and I agree with you. So score an 8, and in the final thoughts explain why.
OR, give it a 9,5, and in the final thoughts clearly explain that there are servers issues, and update the review (not the score) based on what happens next.
OR, come out with the review and a blank score, explaining you are experiencing server issues, and only ofter that gets fixed you'll come out with a precise score.
A score should never be touched. You touch it, the whole scoring thing becomes a joke. Better to get rid of scores entirely at this point (but yeah, there's that Metacritic thing, right?).

 

[GlamFM]

3 Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Ian is an asshole.

2. Most gaffers stand by their decision to hate Polygon - which they made before the site even launched.

3. I should avoid entering threads that have to do with Polygon on neoGAF.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

Out of all the crazy shit from this generation, always online DRM is the worst thing imo.

 

[Perkel]

This mindset is immature. You shouldn't expect that video games are a constant, and that they'll always magically continue. Development studios are closing left and right. Every single time that a new idea for revenue (or protection of their product) is introduced, it's met with this attitude. Even the mere existence of optional pay DLC is offensive. It is this type of mindset that will turn the gaming industry as a whole into a app-store ghetto.

EA stays strong because it takes the necessary steps to ensure their business can continue. Which, if you're not understanding, means more AAA video games keep coming. Unless you're fine with playing Victoria Justice's Angry Birds instead of the $60 quality titles you're used to, realize what it costs. If and when they step over the line (in the case of Sim City's botched launch), remember that the next time you go to make a purchase from that specific company. You don't always need to play the newest game the minute it's released. You could have waited for Polygon's knee-jerk reaction to this problem to buy it, for instance.

Still you are consumer not dev. By your statement we should play all shitty games because if we don't developer may go bust.

If developer release shitty games and clearly is anticonsumer (it may be publisher though) he should go bust and be replaced by other dev studio which create better games for their consumers. That is how market works.

What people don't understand is that gaming can't die if there is market for it. If publisher like EA or Activision would die at same time people would just buy games from other companies making them rich instead.

 

[Aaron]

3 Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Ian is an asshole.

2. Most gaffers stand by their decision to hate Polygon - which they made before the site even launched.

3. I should avoid entering threads that have to do with Polygon on neoGAF.

I've learned that people who make these kind of blanket statements never actually read the thread. Glad to see this is still true.

 

[Mindwipe]

Uh.. I don't see how any of the criticisms of OP apply to Mass Effect 3, except for the preposterous 2005 argument premise of "it haz DLC that means bad."

The game shipped with features called out on the packaging (such as character import from ME2) broken and unfixed for months.

As for Polygon? If I wanted to read the studio's PR text I'd just go to the game's own website.

 

[syllogism]

It affects every PC gamer and whether you like it or hate it, you are still required to experience the DRM every single time you start the game. Now when the servers or your own internet go down then you will see the worst side of it but even when you can connect, the issue is that you have to for single player games.

As more and more games adopt the always online model, your chances increase of running into server maintenance or your own internet outage. What of people with poor internet? Should they be told to find another hobby because publishers think we are all nasty pirates?

The likelihood of my internet going down for a period longer than 10-15 minutes (which is the grace period in Simcity) probably isn't much higher than the chances of a blackout occurring. I "experience" the requirement to be online much in the same way I experience the requirement for my pc to be attached to a power source (power source DRM). Saying that it affects me or every pc gamer is a meaningless statement. Service downtine is a different issue and has to be assessed separately; not every online game experiences downtime.

It's unfortunate that some people can not afford or get a stable internet connection, but we are talking about a luxury good here and not everyone can afford hardware capable of running the game either.

 

[Boss Doggie]

This mindset is immature. You shouldn't expect that video games are a constant, and that they'll always magically continue. Development studios are closing left and right. Every single time that a new idea for revenue (or protection of their product) is introduced, it's met with this attitude. Even the mere existence of optional pay DLC is offensive. It is this type of mindset that will turn the gaming industry as a whole into a app-store ghetto.

And maybe they're closing BECAUSE of the stupid practices done by the publisher while mismanaging the budget.

 

[R1CHO]

The likelihood of my internet going down for a period longer than 10-15 minutes (which is the grace period in Simcity) probably isn't higher than the chances of a blackout occurring. I "experience" the requirement to be online much in the same way I experience the requirement for my pc to be attached to a power source. Saying that it affects me or every pc gamer is a meaningless statement. Service downtine is a different issue and has to be assessed separately; not every online game experiences downtime.

It's unfortunate that some people can not afford or get a stable internet connection, but we are talking about a luxury good here and not everyone can afford hardware capable of running the game either.

What? It's not just that, it would be a wonderful world if shit just works if you have internet, but it's not like that at all.

Remember Diablo3?

Always Online is not shit just because people has to be connected, it's because people depends of the developer/publisher servers to be running.

 

[Perkel]

As of Polygon Update on their SimCity score.

I fully agree on that. It was badly handled since in game like this review should wait to check if everything works ok which they did not do it but at the same time SimCity at release date is not 9/10 game or 10/10 game because it has clear issues.

Now updating further score is food for thought. I believe that review needs to be fair and say in review that game problems and score is representation of reviewed game at certain time. If there is clear message that game will be patched it need to be said in review that developers will patch it later. Or simply contact developers what they plan to do with this problem.

But that doesn't mean we should accept when customers can't play game because they fucked up with servers.

Games no longer are like films when once released they do not change.

 

[GlamFM]

I've learned that people who make these kind of blanket statements never actually read the thread. Glad to see this is still true.

Oh I´ve noticed the thread moving on, but that doesn´t mean the first 10 or so pages didn´t happen.

 

[Oersted]

Who cares man? The publishers are making money by doing these stances so thet are not going to change.

Who cares? It looks like not you, the customer.

 

[syllogism]

What? It's not just that, it would be a wonderful world if shit just works if you have internet, but it's not like that at all.

Remember Diablo3?

Always Online is not shit just because people has to be connected, it's because people depends of the developer/publisher servers to be running.

I addressed this and noted that service downtime can be a very real problem, but service downtime (at least beyond reasonable maintenance periods) does not automatically follow from the always online requirement.

 

[Nose Master]

And maybe they're closing BECAUSE of the stupid practices done by the publisher while mismanaging the budget.

Except that none of the developers that have been closing have used this type of DRM practice. THQ is the only one even close.

They're closing because without any sort of specialized protection or secondary revenue, they need to sell a billion copies to turn a profit. Because they were nice guys that didn't attempt this type of thing. Because they were "pro-consumer."

I'm sure getting a lot of thumbs up from gamers (the same ones that wait until their games are $5 used) helps them walk through the unemployment line, though.

 

[spindoctor]

Unless its game breaking or effects the reviewers enjoyment of the game i dont see why it should be brought up.

The reviewer played it on a private server in controlled conditions with no load at all and had a smooth experience. Real customers are unable to play on live servers. Do you consider the inability to play the game as a game breaking issue?

 

[dimb]

The likelihood of my internet going down for a period longer than 10-15 minutes (which is the grace period in Simcity) probably isn't much higher than the chances of a blackout occurring.

You are assuming the Simcity servers will always be up. In all likelihood a day will come in the future where the servers for the game even get shut down too.

 

[Perkel]

Except that none of the developers that have been closing have used this type of DRM practice. THQ is the only one even close.

They're closing because without any sort of specialized protection or secondary revenue, they need to sell a billion copies to turn a profit. Because they were nice guys that didn't attempt this type of thing. Because they were "pro-consumer."

I'm sure getting a lot of thumbs up from gamers (the same ones that wait until their games are $5 used) helps them walk through the unemployment line, though.

They are closing because they release shit games or they mismanaged their resources or they are fucked by publisher.

I am yet to see developer which failed because piracy hurt them.

PS3 exclusive sales should be in billion coppies because piracy on PS3 is minimal and yet we don't see those numbers rising. Beside disklock any sort of piracy controll is worthless.

 

[Aaron]

Except that none of the developers that have been closing have used this type of DRM practice. THQ is the only one even close.

They're closing because without any sort of specialized protection or secondary revenue, they need to sell a billion copies to turn a profit. Because they were nice guys that didn't attempt this type of thing. Because they were "pro-consumer."

I'm sure getting a lot of thumbs up from gamers (the same ones that wait until their games are $5 used) helps them walk through the unemployment line, though.

Ensemble was closed because they were too successful.
Visceral Montreal was closed before their game was even released.
Disney slashed their developers to change focus.
It's not all about the profits.

If publishers want me to buy games new, don't do shit like always on DRM to turn me off. Next game I'll buy is Heart of the Swarm, which you need to log into to start, but you don't have to match against a server (unless multiplaying obviously) and if you lose connection you can keep on playing. There are also no bizarre DLC schemes or season passes. There is pre-order DLC I believe, but it's cosmetic and easily ignored.