Why is it that no one is clearly naming this "persistent Internet connection" for what it really is? It's copy protection. That age old thorn in the flesh has reared its ugly head again. Why hide that in both the article title and the article itself? Is it politically incorrect these days to label it "copy protection"?
The fact remains that even if you pay $10 for this game, once you hop on an airplane or go to an area where you can't link to the Internet, you cannot play that $10 game anymore! To some people that may not matter. But it should be more openly and plainly discussed in articles that cover the game.
We spoke about this in the article when it was initially revealed that the game needed a persistent connection.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
The fact remains that even if you pay $10 for this game, once you hop on an airplane or go to an area where you can't link to the Internet, you cannot play that $10 game anymore!
The "no internet connection" argument seems silly to me. I understand it but it's kind of going out on a limb. Are there really people out there who were excited to get this game but also so mad they couldn't connect on a plane (maybe) that they wished they didn't buy it? How much time do these Mario fans spend on planes or outside of cell coverage that would have exclusively been used to play games?
And it needs a persistent internet connection, again, so what? So do FaceTime calls and people make those all the time (at 2 MB/minute over cell). Is the argument that we EXPECT FaceTime to use data but we don't expect games to?
I'm not trying to call you out specifically on those arguments, many have made them. They just seem silly to me.
1) Shameful scam In-App purchase design that prevents you from using the purchase on more than one of your own personal devices. No idea how Apple has allowed this. All other Apps with in-app purchase to unlock permanent content allow you to restore it at any time.
2) Embarassingly stupid gameplay. Auto-jump over enemies? This is not Mario.
What are you talking about? If you buy it on one device, it is on every device.
As for 2, no this is perfect for touch devices. No stupid virtual controls that don't work and obscure the screen.
There is no way Battlefield 1 uses 250-500 megabytes an hour. Data usage is low with online PC/console games. Most online shooters on PC/console are using around 50mb an hour. I played Battlefield 1 Conquest mode last night, which is 64 vs 64 players and I only used around 95mb in 3 hours.
Source: Microsoft for both Halo and Battlefield 1.
Why is it that no one is clearly naming this "persistent Internet connection" for what it really is? It's copy protection. That age old thorn in the flesh has reared its ugly head again. Why hide that in both the article title and the article itself? Is it politically incorrect these days to label it "copy protection"?
The fact remains that even if you pay $10 for this game, once you hop on an airplane or go to an area where you can't link to the Internet, you cannot play that $10 game anymore! To some people that may not matter. But it should be more openly and plainly discussed in articles that cover the game.
We spoke about this in the article when it was initially revealed that the game needed a persistent connection.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
Yes, yes you did mention that it was for copy protection. Thanks!
But why? I was not aware that IP theft was a problem on IOS apps. Or, is this copy protection in preparation for the game to be ported to (gag!) Android devices?
Also, if it is strictly for copy protection, then why the heavy data usage? They are forcing their customers to pay extra to their carriers in order to maintain their own protection. Surely they could have done it more efficiently!
And it needs a persistent internet connection, again, so what? So do FaceTime calls and people make those all the time (at 2 MB/minute over cell). Is the argument that we EXPECT FaceTime to use data but we don't expect games to?
Mario can function without an internet connection, Facetime cannot.
Nintendo have chosen to require network access for their own security ends. Apple did not choose to require network access for Facetime, it was impossible to make the app without it.
And it needs a persistent internet connection, again, so what? So do FaceTime calls and people make those all the time (at 2 MB/minute over cell). Is the argument that we EXPECT FaceTime to use data but we don't expect games to?
Mario can function without an internet connection, Facetime cannot.
Nintendo have chosen to require network access for their own security ends. Apple did not choose to require network access for Facetime, it was impossible to make the app without it.
Completely false equivalence.
Thanks for not reading!
So, your expectation is that FaceTime requires a connection but games do not/should not. My expectation is that many games need a connection so the equivalence is not false (how can I play Words with Friends sans Internet?).
If if we just accept that an internet connection is required (which we should because it is) is the argument now about stay usage? Again, seems silly, because there are many everyday iPhone uses that consume much more data (like FaceTime or YouTube) and people are generally not upset by that.
And it needs a persistent internet connection, again, so what? So do FaceTime calls and people make those all the time (at 2 MB/minute over cell). Is the argument that we EXPECT FaceTime to use data but we don't expect games to?
Mario can function without an internet connection, Facetime cannot.
Nintendo have chosen to require network access for their own security ends. Apple did not choose to require network access for Facetime, it was impossible to make the app without it.
Completely false equivalence.
Thanks for not reading!
So, your expectation is that FaceTime requires a connection but games do not/should not. My expectation is that many games need a connection so the equivalence is not false (how can I play Words with Friends sans Internet?).
If if we just accept that an internet connection is required (which we should because it is) is the argument now about stay usage? Again, seems silly, because there are many everyday iPhone uses that consume much more data (like FaceTime or YouTube) and people are generally not upset by that.
Thanks for not reading yourself. I didn't say that games should not require a network connection, but what I will say is that games (and apps too) should only require a network connection when appropriate. Words With Friends is a multiplayer game that works over the internet, so requiring a network connection is appropriate. If Word With Friends has a single player mode or local multiplayer over Bluetooth/wifi then requiring an internet connection would not be appropriate.
I don't mind at all that Mario Run requires internet connectivity during multiplayer elements. But when it doesn't let me play a single player mode where all game resources are local on the device then sure as hell im not happy about that. It's not the data usage that's an issue for me (though it may be for others), it's that the game refuses to let me play if the connection isn't there, which it won't be when I'm on the underground or in areas with spotty network coverage.
"If if we just accept that an internet connection is required (which we shouldn't because it isn't)" - fixed, as there is no consumer advantage in "just" accepting this. Piracy is Nintendos problem, not mine and yours.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
But, Mike, how great a risk is piracy on iOS? As far as I know, you can't pirate anything on iOS unless you jailbreak, and how many people do that? I've never done so.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
But, Mike, how great a risk is piracy on iOS? As far as I know, you can't pirate anything on iOS unless you jailbreak, and how many people do that? I've never done so.
According to a couple of apparently knowledgeable posters here yes some folks have pirated iOS apps without having to jailbreak. I'm fairly certain that going into detail how it's done would not be encouraged here but suffice to say it happens. Do I think it's a serious problem? No, so it surprised me a little to see Nintendo make it an issue. I guess they may be more aggressively protective of their content than some developers and doing what they can to prevent ANY piracy no matter how minimal.
It's their game with their content so it's their choice how and where to offer it to mobile devices. No one has to buy it, but a whole lotta folks have! I'd wager that the always-connected requirement hasn't cost them in revenues.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
But, Mike, how great a risk is piracy on iOS? As far as I know, you can't pirate anything on iOS unless you jailbreak, and how many people do that? I've never done so.
It's not a great risk, but it is there. Nintendo overall has a pretty big problem with it, though.
"Miyamoto added that the security element is one of the reasons that Nintendo chose to deploy the game on iOS first. Clarifying his statements, the designer added that piracy is a real risk for the company as well, as it has been for GameBoy Advance and DS games."
But, Mike, how great a risk is piracy on iOS? As far as I know, you can't pirate anything on iOS unless you jailbreak, and how many people do that? I've never done so.
It's not a great risk, but it is there. Nintendo overall has a pretty big problem with it, though.
The Monument Valley numbers from a couple years ago are way higher when you expect (even when adjusted). I think the mistake a lot of people make is forgetting about other, less... lawful countries. It's hard to find a ton of data on how/if this has changed with iOS 10.
I asked one of my iOS Developer friends about it, and this is what he said (fwiw): to be honest not entirely sure.. people were stealing a lot of IAP ,and I added 2nd stage receipt validation which helps a lot to combat that.. we see by far the most on Android though, because its far easier to crack the APKs and give them to people to install without needing to jailbreak/root
Comments
And it needs a persistent internet connection, again, so what? So do FaceTime calls and people make those all the time (at 2 MB/minute over cell). Is the argument that we EXPECT FaceTime to use data but we don't expect games to?
I'm not trying to call you out specifically on those arguments, many have made them. They just seem silly to me.
As for 2, no this is perfect for touch devices. No stupid virtual controls that don't work and obscure the screen.
It uses Unity.
But why? I was not aware that IP theft was a problem on IOS apps. Or, is this copy protection in preparation for the game to be ported to (gag!) Android devices?
Also, if it is strictly for copy protection, then why the heavy data usage? They are forcing their customers to pay extra to their carriers in order to maintain their own protection. Surely they could have done it more efficiently!
Nintendo have chosen to require network access for their own security ends.
Apple did not choose to require network access for Facetime, it was impossible to make the app without it.
Completely false equivalence.
So, your expectation is that FaceTime requires a connection but games do not/should not. My expectation is that many games need a connection so the equivalence is not false (how can I play Words with Friends sans Internet?).
If if we just accept that an internet connection is required (which we should because it is) is the argument now about stay usage? Again, seems silly, because there are many everyday iPhone uses that consume much more data (like FaceTime or YouTube) and people are generally not upset by that.
I don't mind at all that Mario Run requires internet connectivity during multiplayer elements. But when it doesn't let me play a single player mode where all game resources are local on the device then sure as hell im not happy about that. It's not the data usage that's an issue for me (though it may be for others), it's that the game refuses to let me play if the connection isn't there, which it won't be when I'm on the underground or in areas with spotty network coverage.
"If if we just accept that an internet connection is required (which we shouldn't because it isn't)" - fixed, as there is no consumer advantage in "just" accepting this. Piracy is Nintendos problem, not mine and yours.
It's their game with their content so it's their choice how and where to offer it to mobile devices. No one has to buy it, but a whole lotta folks have! I'd wager that the always-connected requirement hasn't cost them in revenues.
I asked one of my iOS Developer friends about it, and this is what he said (fwiw):
to be honest not entirely sure.. people were stealing a lot of IAP ,and I added 2nd stage receipt validation which helps a lot to combat that.. we see by far the most on Android though, because its far easier to crack the APKs and give them to people to install without needing to jailbreak/root