You are not alone,good sir ;), we just need more bubble gum.Cheers.

They seem to use similar argumentation that was used for Diablo 3, something something "seamless experience between single and multiplayer" something something.

But at least this time it apparently covers also the console versions, and not like Diablo 3 where all their arguments fall flat when the console versions appears, without requiring a constant online connection... Wow, what happened to the arguments that the game isn't really doable without requiring always-online also for the single player?

I just wish they'd be straight on why they require always-online, instead of trying to make me believe this is really what I want, I just don't know it yet. Thanks for being so condescending, how silly of me not wanting always-online for single player!

That's marketing speak bullshit because you decide things by emotion not truth. See the science:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

Thank the alien scum that Duke nukem forever was never released here, or you might really have some butt hurt :)

It's all those kiddies pushing us oldies out mindlessly forking over cash for games sadly. Kids who grew up with youtube/twitch and the internet don't know how computers work and have grown up only knowing steam/MMO's and are too easy to say yes with their purchases.

There was this thing with the new Simcity too...

They aren't going to be straight, the game industry is rotten to the core and they know most gamers are stupid, tech illiterate and addicted.

I'll stick with the truth thank you very much. So please keep your bullshit.

They are obviously happy with not getting my monies. You can has it Gog.

Nobody was going to buy that game for the single player anyway. So in this case at least nobody with any sense is adversely affected in the slightest.

Not that I in any way condone always online DRM. But in a multiplayer game it's irrelevant.

Except you'd be wrong. In the 90's we got LAN and dedicated servers with our games, that stopped because most gamers are computer illiterate. Now they just accept the marketing speak of game companies sadly.

meh, not going to buy or play it anyway so they can keep their drm and shove them both ...

LANs... Yeah, those memories... playing Doom over a DOS Utility that used the RS232 bus to "emulate" an Ethernet Connection and having 4 PCs connectec via null-modem cables (Uh, have to ask a friend again how they where chained, as I have no hint of that in my memory at the moment) was fun... with true ethernet cards it was more fun... playing quake deathmatch via a dial-up connection with a 2400kb modem was also fun, but online/WAN couldn't beat that LAN feeling... meeting in real life with friends over a weekend to just game, frag, splatter, game on... nope sorry sir, any game that doesn't support pure lan for multiplayer and insists on wan is a major "no go" on that "to buy or not to buy"-agenda of mine and could only be beaten by a "but great single player campaign (offline gaming)"...

Dedicated servers still require an internet connection. LAN gaming is, sadly dead. I miss it but by and large it's dead and you couldn't make Battleborn the way that Gearbox want to make it and have LAN play. That would encounter the same problems.

So no, I'm not wrong. My point is: Battleborn is not the kind of game that most people here would want anyway. Its features are not compatible with the superior options you've mentioned. Yes, more LAN friendly FPS would be great, but this was never going to be that game. Or one with dedicated servers.

They don't! Dedicated means you start the game on one pc in "listening" aka "dedicated server mode" (no player, just hosting) and the players connect to it ... maybe games after the times of Quake/Unreal with the transition to more and more online gaming are not offering that option anymore, but the old Multiplayer LAN Games had it most of the time,,,