Redfall's single-player mode might not be online-only after all

[Daniel Sims]

Why it matters: Fans of Arkane's previous work, like the Dishonored games and Prey, were disappointed to discover that the developer's latest title, Redfall, would require an internet connection, even while playing alone. Now, the studio is trying to offer an offline mode but can't guarantee anything.

Amid a new round of previews for Microsoft's upcoming open-world action game Redfall, developer Arkane told Eurogamer it's working to address its requirement for an internet connection. However, making such a significant change a little over a month before launch could be difficult.

While many big publishers have swung toward online service-oriented games, Bethesda is known for mostly making games to be enjoyed entirely without an internet connection. Subsidiary Arkane, in particular, only developed offline single-player games for over 20 years, that is, until it added an optional player-versus-player mode to the 2021 Deathloop.

So fans of the company's previous games have harbored reservations about Redfall, which appears to prioritize its four-player co-op mode. Arkane insists solo mode can deliver a complete experience but still needs an online connection.

This week, game director Harvey Smith said the company is responding to negative feedback regarding the internet requirement and will try to find a solution despite the online mode being a core component. While some might assume Redfall is forcing players online to sell them microtransactions or enforce DRM, Smith said the sole reason is telemetry.

Like other Arkane titles, Redfall lets players use its tools in various ways, and the studio wants raw data on how users respond to gameplay. Smith promises it won't feature "games-as-a-service" features beyond cosmetic DLC.

Smith acknowledged that some people have slow internet or outages. However, it isn't clear whether Arkane can shimmy an offline mode into Redfall. The company needs to retool the user interface and develop a method to encrypt save files, thus preventing cheaters from tampering with the co-op mode.

In a separate interview with IGN France this week, Smith let slip that Arkane originally planned a PlayStation 5 version of Redfall. However, after Microsoft acquired ZeniMax, it instructed the developer to focus on Xbox and PC. It isn't clear whether a PS5 version reached active development or was simply in the planning stages, but Smith says Microsoft unambiguously canceled it.

The revelation can potentially undermine Microsoft's argument for its $67 billion purchase of Activision Blizzard. PlayStation manufacturer Sony has continually raised fears among international regulators that Microsoft will restrict Activision Blizzard properties like Call of Duty to Xbox and Windows just as it has with Bethesda titles like Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI.

Microsoft has repeatedly responded by proposing and inking deals to bring Call of Duty to other platforms. However, the US Federal Trade Commission recently requested more information regarding Microsoft's earlier acquisition of Bethesda's and Arkane's parent company ZeniMax, arguing that making Bethesda's upcoming Starfield exclusive to Xbox and PC violated an earlier agreement.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/98043-redfall-single-player-mode-might-not-online-only.html

 

[brucek]

Why are regulators so concerned with Microsoft exclusives, and apparently not at all with Sony exclusives?

Big picture I'm not sure regulators should be able to outlaw exclusives, although as a gamer I'd probably appreciate it, at least until any unintended consequences kicked in.

Either way I know I definitely don't appreciate regulators defending Sony's exclusives for the console I don't own while trying to stop Microsoft from increasing the titles available on the XBox and PC I do own, and the Game Pass I think is a good deal.

 

[NintPlayBox]

Since when do we worry so much when games are exclusive to Xbox...last time I checked Sony has the industry in a stranglehold with far more exclusive games than Xbox and Nintendo put together.

 

[Burty117]

What's the point of anti-monopoly laws if they never enforce them?

Indeed, I wondered why we care if Microsoft buys all the studios. If you lookup what studios Sony has purchased over the years, you'll notice it's not that many and they tend to be singular studios, not giant publishing houses with many studios under them.

Microsoft basically can't attract talent and can't make a good game themselves, they have the power to purchase half the industry if they so felt like it, that's what needs to be stopped. Or at least, that's my understanding of the situation.

Sony doing better than Microsoft isn't really an excuse to let Microsoft buy large parts of the industry. Also, it's all for game pass anyway, do that many people really want to pay for another subscription?

 

[amghwk]

I have uninstalled all games in my Android phone that requires internet to play or force to make an account online.

Same goes to my PC games. I play single-player games to keep me entertained. Not to join a multiplayer world full of cheaters and hackers.

And the worst of the lot are those that require internet connection to play single-player games!!

 

[brucek]

I like laws against monopolies. I don't see any evidence that Microsoft is anywhere near a monopoly in gaming. If Microsoft were to acquire Sony and every exclusive available for both Xbox and Playstation they still wouldn't be close to a monopoly in gaming as whole or even just console gaming. Other major players include Nintendo, Apple, Google, countless independent and mobile publishers and studios, etc. etc.

They're not even going after Microsoft for a monopoly on PC computer operating systems, which they don't really have a monopoly on either, but at least what they have there is a lot more market share and a lot fewer competitors than they have in gaming.

 

[Puiu]

Why are regulators so concerned with Microsoft exclusives, and apparently not at all with Sony exclusives?

Big picture I'm not sure regulators should be able to outlaw exclusives, although as a gamer I'd probably appreciate it, at least until any unintended consequences kicked in.

Either way I know I definitely don't appreciate regulators defending Sony's exclusives for the console I don't own while trying to stop Microsoft from increasing the titles available on the XBox and PC I do own, and the Game Pass I think is a good deal.

Because MS is buying the giants of the industry in a bid to try and undermine the competition. This isn't about a specific exclusive title, it's about a good chunk of the entire gaming industry becoming exclusive to MS. This is something that isn't good for any consumer.

 

[brucek]

Again, Microsoft is the challenger to the larger Sony and Nintendo, in the console space. Sony has had a larger collection of exclusives for a long period. I see this as Microsoft trying to step up as an equal competitor. And that's just in the narrow slice of the gaming market that is consoles. In the bigger segment that is mobile titles, Microsoft is essentially a non-player.

Then there's the question of who we're protecting. Antitrust law is supposed to entirely focused on consumer protection. Companies can not assert an antitrust act for their own interests, only consumers can. In this case, it seems Microsoft is trying to assemble additional content for a game pass it is already selling and with no hints there is a price increase planned. The consumer interest here is in more content at no more cost on the Game Pass, and less disadvantage in terms of exclusives by buying an Xbox instead of a Playstation.

If and when Microsoft is showing signs of truly assembling an actual monopoly position, regulators should act. Microsoft is currently not even a market leader nor approaching anything like even 51% share, let alone 100%. If they feel like getting involved today, they should start with suits against Sony, Nintendo and Apple -- none of which would truly qualify as monopolies either but they are closer than Microsoft is.

 

[Puiu]

Again, Microsoft is the challenger to the larger Sony and Nintendo, in the console space. Sony has had a larger collection of exclusives for a long period. I see this as Microsoft trying to step up as an equal competitor. And that's just in the narrow slice of the gaming market that is consoles. In the bigger segment that is mobile titles, Microsoft is essentially a non-player.

Then there's the question of who we're protecting. Antitrust law is supposed to entirely focused on consumer protection. Companies can not assert an antitrust act for their own interests, only consumers can. In this case, it seems Microsoft is trying to assemble additional content for a game pass it is already selling and with no hints there is a price increase planned. The consumer interest here is in more content at no more cost on the Game Pass, and less disadvantage in terms of exclusives by buying an Xbox instead of a Playstation.

If and when Microsoft is showing signs of truly assembling an actual monopoly position, regulators should act. Microsoft is currently not even a market leader nor approaching anything like even 51% share, let alone 100%. If they feel like getting involved today, they should start with suits against Sony, Nintendo and Apple -- none of which would truly qualify as monopolies either but they are closer than Microsoft is.

Sony has first party studios working for them (most of them would not exist without Sony). Very big difference to what MS is doing now.

I'm very much against exclusivity deals. I consider them to be the cancer of the gaming industry. I don't like either companies, but I dislike the idea of MS buying up such large franchises and gaming giants much more than what Sony is doing.

 

[kira setsu]

I don't get the big deal with microsoft(or anyone really) buying another company, it isn't like micro walked into the actiblizz offices with a gun and ordered them to offer themselves up, they want to be bought, and somebody is gonna get em.

in the end if your hobby is gaming no matter what youre gonna end up with 3 consoles, 4 if you include PC, in my case I dont have a ps5 because without a new uncharted it has nothing for me and its big titles will hit pc if I wait(looking at you ff16, which sony is holding hostage) I dont have an xbox because I game on pc and have gamepass, I do have a switch because no ones figured out how to make a better kart racer than mk8.

imo, buyouts are gonna happen because devs want to keep giving players what they want, and they seem to want every game to be bigger and better than the last...and spectacle f***ing cost, and since raising prices causes pitchforks to be raised and players are getting wise to dlc abuse the next big step is hitch your wagon to a behemoth like microsoft.

 

[Hodor]

This poses an interesting engineering problem:
How do you spy on your faithful customers without them being online?

Also, why are people complaining about being constantly online?

I mean..... users these days...