Fortnite may require constant online connection
By
Eddie Makuch, News Editor
[UPDATE] Producer Tanya Jessen says Epic could mandate persistent Internet connection for upcoming survival game in the interest of fun over fighting piracy.
Epic Games may mandate gamers have a constant Internet connection to play upcoming PC survival game Fortnite, producer Tanya Jessen told Rock Paper Shotgun. She said firm plans are not yet in place, but noted if Fortnite were to require a persistent connection, it would be done in the interest of fun over a desire to fight piracy.
“That’s something we don’t know yet,” Jessen said. “It’s gonna be really dependent on gameplay, and it’s also dependent on platform. So whatever we decide to do there is gonna be more relevant to the most fun experience you can have with your friends [than it is to piracy]. But I can’t nail that down today.”
[UPDATE] Following the publication of this story, Epic provided a statement to Rock Paper Shotgun, reiterating that no firm plans are yet in place.
“We’re not talking about our plans at this time, mainly because that plan doesn’t exist yet," reads a line from the statement. "Fortnite is an iterative, living project and many things are still being decided prior to its release in 2013.”
During Comic-Con 2012 last week, Epic Games announced that Fortnite will be the first game to run on the latest iteration of the company's development toolset, Unreal Engine 4. The game has been announced only for the PC, but Epic Games design director Cliff Bleszinski said the company has not ruled out the possibility of releasing the game on other platforms.
Fortnite is described as a cooperative "sandbox survival game," with gameplay divided into two main sections: day and night. During the day, players will work together to build fortifications using whatever materials can be scavenged and scrounged. Once night falls, they will retreat into their forts as they hope to fend off waves of monsters and survive until morning.
For more on Fortnite, check out GameSpot's previous coverage.
By
Eddie Makuch, News Editor
Eddie Makuch (Mack-ooh) is a News Editor at GameSpot. He works out of the company's Boston office in Somerville, Mass., and loves extra chunky peanut butter.
138 comments
Good luck selling a new IP that almost no one has ever heard of, if you alienate the people that will purchase it first and then spread the word... which are the gamers that know what kind of crap DRM you added to the game.
Blizzard could get away with always online drm because Diablo is one of the most beloved game franchises in video games. It also backfired on them a bit. Good luck trying to peddle your (non-beloved) product off on already annoyed gamers Epic.
1 Like "it would be done in the interest of fun over a desire to fight piracy."
The masses at large are bound to believe this because most companies have a firm track record of choosing fun over their own corporate interests.
"Producer Tanya Jessen says Epic could mandate persistent Internet connection for upcoming survival game in the interest of fun over fighting piracy."
Don't you mean in the interest of fighting piracy over fun. :|
2 Like Dear Epic Games,
Go look at the comments section for a recent article here at Gamespot about the always online connection for Diablo 3 and then tell me if its still a good idea to make this decision.
Thanks.
1 Like Well, there goes my interest in another game. I was very interested - I hope this is not true, as I will not support any always-on DRM title.
"She said firm plans are not yet in place, but noted if Fortnite were to require a persistent connection, it would be done in the interest of fun over a desire to fight piracy". Yeah I am calling BS on this right away, you can have the same fun by granting online access only when you want it, not that it matters to them anyways, after all gamers the world over allowed Blizzard to get away with it so they know people will complain but buy their game anyways.
Every company that has tried to mimic Blizzard has failed miserably. It'll be interesting to watch how gamers start reacting to the 'always online' trend. I think players will eventually start voting with their dollars when they realize the less successful games will be unplayable after their servers get taken offline within a year due to lack of sales.
Aside form all of the "always online" crap, I have a question about the last paragraph....
Is it just me, or was that the basic explanation of "Minecraft" (except for the "together" part) when it first came out and no one really knew how to describe it?
2 Like Look, people who bought Diablo III:
This is YOUR fault.
By supporting this kind of always-on DRM crap, other companies WILL start considering it seriously. This is just the beginning.
See how the discourse is so closely aligned: Blizzard says the always-online requirement is to "keep the game smooth", Epic's producer says it is "in the interest of fun"... All to divert attention from the obvious fact that it serves their in-game purchases and piracy protection all to well.
Smooth indeed, I can see that when the game lags... Fun indeed when my internet goes down and I lose game progress for nothing.
I don't blame companies for trying to protect their intellectual rights. But always-online DRM is offensive. Steam is a form of DRM and is mostly invisible. And Blizzard is only doing this to protect their precious virtual 'goods' they take 15% off every time they're sold to idiots willing to pay for pixels. It's outrageous.
And YOU, people who paid for Diablo III... I hope you die in a fire for doing that.
2 Like Funny thing is that not everyone has a good internet connection. Whether it's snail broadband, it's dial up, it's a limited data plan, or it's unstable and likely to disconnect randomly, there's too many problems with requiring this. Even then, you also have to consider that a good ISP may be here one day, but vanish the next like mine did because of an accident their insurance refused to cover.
2 Like It was a lot better back then when you just needed a connection in order to agree to the Liscence Agreement and to play online.
3 Like I wash my hands of this nonsense. It hurts the consumer more than aids against piracy. If it gets put in, my purchase is OUT.
Isn't this a b***h! I thought Fornite was coming to consoles as well. I got geeked about it when I saw the teaser and now I find out its only on PC.
So in other words: Not always online for consoles...but online for PC...I got it. Way to stay classy devs...
10 Like Yes, indeed, because having to be online to play with friends instead of over the local network is WAY more fun... Especially when you decide to take servers down for maintenance. And lag, that's going to be awesome!!!
Why do devs feel the need to bullshit? Of course it's to try and prevent piracy, what difference does online/offline make to a "fun experience".
7 Like damn I was excited for this game but after going through all the Diablo 3 BS, I'll pass!
Seeing as it's touted as a co-op game, I don't really see the problem. I'm sure most people are connected to the internet 24/7 these days. Things go wrong, sure. But things go wrong with games generally. Don't know how many games released these days have game breaking problems that cause crashing and what not. It's not a huge deal, if it was being sold with singeplayer in mind I'd think differently but I don't really see this as a game focused around singeplayer experiences.
3 Like @lucfonzy mmm you argument only make sense for the MP component. But the need to make SP component online only?
Also, while people are connected to internet, it is NOT always 24/7. ISP does go down. And even if it doesn't sometimes the ping rate goes crazy and cause you to rubberband all over the place. And when you get everything worked out and get an ISP that is actually worth its salt, the server shuts down for maintenance for days (cough D3 .. cough). And that is not even to ponder about the fate of the game when they actually shut down the sever 2, 3, 4 years down the road.
1 Like @lucfonzy I don't mind 'online verification', that's no biggie. Most people should be able to do that even over a dial-up connection. I'd be happy if they pinged their servers at the start of every match to verify the copies' legitimacy.
The problem is when you're forced to host a game on their servers, which adds lag, and in some cases quite a bit (About 300ms in my case, being in Oz and their servers going to be in the US).
When the alternative is to host a local game and play without lag, being forced to play online "for more fun" just doesn't cut it.
@Daemoroth True.
I'm not quite sure what the deal is with this game? Is it persistent online? Persistently saving your progress, seeing as you are constructing forts and stuff... seems kinda dumb to be starting "matches" etc and building stuff from the ground up each time.
I kinda imagine it to be like minecraft in that sense of persistence...
@lucfonzy I'm expecting it to be more of a Minecraft basic idea but short multiplayer matches (Like the survival modes with waves of enemies).
You start from scratch every match and see how long you and your buddies can last. After every wave (Night) you get a chance to scavenge and reinforce your fort (Day).
If it is persistent, then I understand the online-only component (So friends can continue working on the fort if you're not online, etc.).
Also, if it is persistent, and ends up being Minecraft on the U4 engine... Then... I'll probably be single a week after launch (Or not, I won't be checking my phone either). :P
3 Like When will developers learn that acting against the lowest common denominator at the expense of the vast majority is a fairly terrible business model?
People who would pirate your game won?t suddenly buy it because of your latest brand of DRM..
Who isn't always online these days anyway? It's 2012 not 1998. Developers don't need to develop for the 0.7% of the population that don't have online access.
3 Like @Salt_AU Exactly what @surferosh said. Always online just screws over the gamer since if the servers crash/your internet cuts out/you move, you can't play a game you bought. Also, always online forces lag onto players
@valadezSo play single player games and save money by not having to pay for an ISP if thats such a problem for you. This is a multiplayer game, it requires a connection. Deal with it.
Moreover, right now we are already "logging in", but it is a choice and no child in the family would be allowed to "log in" once they get out of bed. So again you are not quite addressing the point. Just because digital content will be pervasive doesn't mean that we must accept "ALWAY ONLINE" requirement. Logging in as and when I want to is totally different from "FORCED" to log in all the time just top make sure that electricity is supplied to my house, just for example. So please do not think that one thing is equal to another. And if you ask around, I am sure that most people would be ok with the first, as it would be their choice to do so, and protest the second.
And lastly, Online Connectivity again is different from ALWAY ONLINE connectivity. I do take my router down to save power once in a while and let it cool down. And I know that at this point, not one ISP in the world can promise a downtime of less than 99%. So you are here saying that the time for Alway Online thingey is now? I think not.
@Salt_AU :P I know that, but I am just correcting the misconception that you seems to be spreading.
mmm AO requirement is going to be standard ya? just like the flying cars was going to be standard in the 20th century? :P
But on a more serious note, I do not think so. It is the latest and most onerous form of DRM that the publishers is pushing on the gamers and I think all gamers should sit up and take notice and make their opinion know in one way or the other.
And ... "Having disruptions to the service will always be an unfortunate problem but it will get progressively less as will lag, etc." sorry but this get my goat. If you will pardon me saying so, it will make me look at you strangely if you are right here in front of me :P. You are either an eternal optimist or ... well something much less savoury. But as for my own opinion, this is not just an unfortunate problem .. it is a game stopping problem in the level of game stopping bugs which spoils the whole game for the player. At this point in time, there is not way in H#LL that it can be implemented without punishing the legit player's quality of gameplay.
PS - actually there wasn't much hue and cry when automobile was introduced :P skepticism perhaps but was quickly adopted due to the advantage. Of course those carriage people ain't very pleased :P. But as an analogy it is not quite valid, cause the automobile did not impose an disadvantage on users and buyers who adopt the tech, quite the opposite. (well at least no too much disadvantage as they understand then ... no one could have forseen the pollution and global warming thingey).
Now I would change your analogy. If instead of automobile, they introduced a solar car at that time without the proper infrastructure ... so it is more expensive than a horse but slower and can only run in the day or after extensive charging which the company will only allow you to charge during the opening hour. Do you think it will become "standard"?
This is for almost everyone in this thread and not just directed at you doodlepigs.
'Always' online is going to eventually be standard whether people like it or not, in all games and across all platforms. Its simply going to happen. Having disruptions to the service will always be an unfortunate problem but it will get progressively less as will lag, etc. I can guarantee when your children are getting out of bed in 10-15 years time, more than likely less, they'll 'log in' to something, it will be like putting your pants on in the morning.
Online connectivity is going to be a fundamental part of your daily lives and I'm not just talking 'games and entertainment' either. Trust me. Sure people will kick and scream and cry like I am seeing from 99% (pretty much everyone exceot me) of people posting on this topic, people no doubt cried when they introduced automobiles to replace a horse and cart... Its called progress.
1 Like @Salt_AU btw it is NOT a multiplayer game.
Check the link http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/07/19/exclusive-epic-mulling-always-online-for-fortnite/
And the quote "?Single-player?s absolutely gonna be super fun,? Jessen enthused. ?But, like I said, we?re building it to be a co-op experience."
So while MP is a focus, there WILL be SP component.
4 Like @Salt_AU I know its a multiplayer game, so you'll need a internet connection to play it with buddies. But if you want to play solo, you shouldn't have to stay connected to the internet. That makes no sense
4 Like @Salt_AU errr.. it is not just being online at the end point, i.e the gamer.. but also at the server point.. how will you feel when u are in the middle of a battle and the server goes down and you arent able to play.. even though u paid for the game, you are online with a connection as fast as Speedy Gonzalez...
this was a problem for Ubi's servers lately.. and with D3 as well..
Asinine comment, nothing is guaranteed champ. Your power might go out when you are in the middle of an offline battle, you aren't able to play even though you paid for the game.
You assume correctly, dealing with latency of 280-500 is par for the course here. Online gaming for Australians is generally played with US West as its about our best choice. We're used to it.
Technology always wins in the end though, the internet and online connectivity in general is still very much in its infancy. In 10 years we'll probably be complaining because out latency of 0.2 suddenly spiked and jumped to 3.5.
2 Like @Salt_AU Well when a company makes Always Online a requirement, they better hold up their end of the bargain and ensure that they provide the content when we want to log in. Else it can be considered a breach of agreement no matter what the EULA says.
2 Like @Salt_AU Did you pay the power company for the GAME you were playing? No?
PS - Assuming you're in Oz, I would have thought you'd have the brains to consider the lag you're going to experience playing this game if they decide not to host servers in Oz (Or when they decide to shut them down and you have to play on US servers).
2 Like @Salt_AU Well power failures are tough luck.. My response was at least a bit relevant to the context with actual examples.. You just mentioned a truly different and non contextual scenario. Guess, the asinine nature of the comment now flies back at you mate.
3 Like If they do this, I won't buy it....at least at full price. I may get it on sale at a fraction of the price down the road, but I can't support these kinds of protocols at full price out of the gate.
6 Like Bahahaha! What idiots. There's no such thing as "always online in the interest of fun". If they want you to have the ability to be always online for fun that's great. Do it. But do NOT "require" it. That is not fun and is absolutely for the sole purpose of fighting piracy. Liars! Liars everywhere!
1 Like Thats lame, my xbox recently broke for the second time in a couple of years, it plays everything, but the ethernet port does not recognize my cable. So basically if something like this went through, although I can physically play games I legally owned, I would be barred from playing them through no fault of my own. Good job.
@kiramasaki It's currently a PC exclusive. The only consoles you might see it on are next gen due to unreal engine 4 compatibility.
Conversation powered by Livefyre
Content you might like…
-
Fortnite using Unreal Engine 4
[UPDATE] Epic Games confirms it will debut new technology platform with PC-exclusive cooperative survival game due out next year; designer Cliff Bleszinski says game may come to other platforms after PC launch.
- Jul 12, 2012
Users who looked at this article also looked at these content items.
Hot Stories
Newsmakers
-
Biden: No legal problem with taxing violent games
United States Vice President Joe Biden believes there is no legal restriction on ability to tax violent media. Full Story
- Posted May 14, 2013 3:50 am SST
-
Just Cause dev promises 'holy f**king sh**' moments in future games
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 9:33 pm SST
Featured Stories
-
Bungie shoots down Destiny for PS Vita rumor
Developer confirms image suggesting version of upcoming shared-world shooter in development for Sony's latest portable is a fake. Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 8:08 pm SST
-
Ubisoft planning to release games more frequently
Assassin's Creed and Far Cry publisher says its network of 26 studios and over 7,000 developers will allow company to ship major franchises more regularly. Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 7:42 pm SST
-
Metro: Last Light dev responds to workplace conditions claims
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 17, 2013 3:44 am SST
-
EA opens DICE LA to make Star Wars games
DICE head would also like to poach top talent from rivals Infinity Ward and Treyarch. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 6:28 pm SST
-
EA dropping Online Passes - Report
Future EA games won't require Online Passes; the service is being scrapped after tepid player response. Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 11:28 am SST
Submit News
Related Game
Recent News
-
'Big' Battlefield 4 news teased on eve of Xbox 720 event
Official Twitter account for first-person shooter series says "big announcements are coming soon"; reveal event to last one hour.
