However, they’ve been having a bit of a renaissance over the last few years and, compared to the other major publishers, they’ve been starting to look like the good guys. They’ve had their ups and downs with DRM just like everyone else but they’ve actually been adding some nice incentives to help tip the balance.

Both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, for example, contain extra content for those customers that buy a brand new version of the game. But the real brownie points come from the fact that this content, whilst requiring activation, can be used when you’re offline. I have to admit that, when I saw my copy of DA:O trying to talk to EA’s servers every time I played, I was quite appalled. However, there have been very few reports of people being unable to play offline with their bonus content (so long as you have successfully authenticated within the last few weeks or so).

Sadly, with the release of Command & Conquer 4, it looks like they might be back to their old ways. An article from PC Gamer has exposed their methods for trying to combat piracy and the secondhand market as being worse than Ubisoft’s! Not only do you have to be online for the entire time you’re playing (even if you’re just playing singleplayer) but it doesn’t even attempt to reconnect should you have any problems. Due to the way the system has been implemented, this also means that any progress you make from that point on (even if your connection comes back) will not be recorded. At all.

What they’ve effectively built is an MMO style system but where the client isn’t fully dependant on the server. If that weren’t the case, you’d at least know why you couldn’t carry on playing (no connection to the server means the server doesn’t know what you’re doing). Here, on the other hand, we’ve got the illusion that the client can do its own thing only to find out later that the server will then ignore everything since the last time it was connected.

If you’re a PC gamer who cares about their privacy or the ability to play your games on your terms, the list of suitable titles from major publishers is getting ever shorter.

On the plus side, the independent studios have been releasing some wonderful games recently and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change any time soon. So, if you want something to play whilst you’re avoiding all of this cloud gaming nonsense, why not check out The Indie Love Bundle.

But then you see that little thing about having to be connected to the internet for the whole time that you play a game, even if it's just single player.

Oh... really? That doesn't sound very nice.

Indeed, and here's why:

1. No network is perfect, particularly not WiFi ones. From time to time you might have an issue with your local network and, therefore, not be able to talk to Ubisoft's servers.
   • The best case scenario here is that your game is simply paused while the connection sorts itself out. Not too bad I suppose but I'm sure it would annoy you after a while.
   • The worst case scenario is that you have to stop playing then and there to sort out your connection and you can't carry on playing until it's fixed.
2. No ISP is perfect and, from time to time, you may find that you have no internet connection at all. Some would argue that these are the most likely times for gamers to turn to their single player games for entertainment. Of course, that won't be possible under Ubisoft's new regime.
3. Even the ISP(s) of a large corporation like Ubisoft aren't infallible and will, from time to time, have trouble connecting to other networks. Ubisoft say that they'll have 24/7 support for this system but that doesn't really mean anything if a problem takes a few hours to fix, which is not at all unlikely.
4. Ubisoft's own IT systems will occur problems, from time to time. As mentioned above, their pledge to have round-the-clock support means very little if issues at some random server farm mean that you can't play when your own systems are perfectly fine.

The above points only address the technical problems with a system like this. I won't even bother going into all of the privacy concerns surrounding a system that continually ‘phones home’ whilst you're playing. Nor will I even delve into the effect this will have on the modding community or even your own ability to share save files online or with friends.

Of course, what this all boils down to is a transfer of control, from the user to the publisher. It will no longer be within the user's control to ensure that they can play their games, that they have paid for, whenever they want to.

Most software companies already try to assert that you are merely buying a license to use their products, not to actually own them. This may even be the case in the eyes of the law (I'm not sure if it's been fully tested) but I would be surprised if many consumers are even aware that these assertions are being made.

With this new system, Ubisoft seem to be really testing the concept of software being sold as a license and I can only hope that consumers finally realise that this is not acceptable and start demonstrating this by not paying for any product that is attached to this or similar services.

The defining characteristic of a sandbox game is that it provides an environment that appears to be its own living world. For a game with a contemporary setting, this means streets filled with cars and pavements swelling with pedestrians. Whatever the setting, these types of games will do their best to provide NPCs that appear to go about their lives regardless of what you, the player, might be doing.

The main supporting criteria of a sandbox game is generally that you are free to explore that living world outside of any normal mission structure. It is also common for these types of games to offer incentives for that exploration, either in the form of in-game rewards or some kind of trackable achievements.

Story driven

Screenshot from Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, a game that focuses heavily on its story.

There seem to be two main types of sandbox games at the moment: those that embrace the fun aspects of being allowed to have free rein in a virtual world and those that simply use the environment as a backdrop to the story.

Arguably, the most acclaimed game in the story camp is Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven, a game that has you playing as a driver for a crime family in the 1930s. Mafia doesn't offer many side missions or activities in its virtual playground but the city of Lost Heaven is full of life; pedestrians walk purposefully along the pavements, cars obey the speed limits & indicate before turning and trams stop to pick up passengers.

All of this activity is mostly incidental because, whilst you can hi-jack cars or beat up pedestrians, the game doesn't offer any incentives to do this. In fact, the police are very active and will quickly chase you down if they catch you doing anything of the sort. You could also take a tram ride across town but, again, without any reward at the other end, few people will choose to do so.

Despite this, the fact that the environment feels so real genuinely adds to the atmosphere of the story and helps to fully immerse you into the game. When you are forced to stick to the speed limit for fear of having the cops chase you down before you've even gotten to the start of a mission, you realise how these little details help to build up the tension and let you suspend any disbelief that might come from some of its technical failings.

On the flip side, Crackdown is probably the best example of a highly acclaimed sandbox game whose story is practically non-existant. This is a game that provides the most minimal of introductions, sets up the mission structure and then lets you decide how to carry on from there. This can lead to a lot of repetition and, because it isn't masked by a compelling story, you're always aware that you're playing a game. A game that has its own rules and systems that you have to work within.

Of course, this is true of most games and because the core gameplay is so fun and the rewards for exploration so well paced, it's not difficult to overlook this and just enjoy what's on offer.

In terms of the sandbox metaphor then, Crackdown would be a box filled with sand and a couple of plastic tools lying around in a slightly haphazard way. Conversely, Mafia would be a box with a pre-built sand castle city and a few army figures.

Realism

Screenshot from Saints Row 2, ludicrous but fun.

When any type of game shifts towards the side of realism, it always ends up sacrificing some of its raw fun in order to provide the best simulation it can. With sandbox games, this usually means that there are no 'wacky' side activities to dip into and that the environment's rules are much closer to the real thing. No more ploughing through pedestrians and watching their flailing bodies shoot 20 feet up into the air.

It is generally the case that most sandbox games that focus on their story fall more towards the side of realism, but the opposite is not necessarily true. GTA IV, for example, was quite a shift in the series and provided a setting that was a lot more realistic than had been seen in any of the previous incarnations. However, the structure of the game remained very similar to that of its predecessors, which left it wallowing in the awkward realm of providing a fairly realistic back-drop but very standard, and sometimes jarring, gameplay mechanics.

It was surprising to see the GTA series change direction like this but, fortunately, Saints Row had already come along and shown that other developers are capable of making equally fun sandboxes to play in. When Saints Row 2 was released, it was obvious that at least one series would be sticking to its outlandish roots because, if anything, it was even more over-the-top than the original. When a game has side missions that involve spraying houses with excrement, you know that you've sailed straight past the station marked ‘Realism’ and are well on your way to Insanityville.

Of course, realism doesn't just relate to the rules of the world but also to the tone of the narrative. In that sense, it seems that a lot more games are spending time on making you believe in the characters that you're interacting with. There is still a long way to go before you could say most dialogue in games is nothing more than a cheesy caricature of a real human exchange but, as the medium matures, there is certainly more effort being spent in this area. Even Saints Row 2 has a much more thought out story than its predecessor and it can even be quite sobering at times; a sharp contrast to the insanity of the gameplay.

The future

So what can we expect from our sandbox games in the future? One thing is certainly clear, there's not a ‘right’ way to create a game in this genre; it's already filled with some fairly varied examples. As is always inevitable, there will be games that might only borrow a few of the key elements of a sandbox game and would more comfortably fit in a separate genre. You could argue that a lot of RPGs would already qualify for this.

It will be interesting to see if any future games forego the story in quite the same way Crackdown did or whether the maturing of the industry will mean that it's difficult for a mainstream game to not have a narrative that would at least rival a B-Movie.

All indications seem to say that this genre is far from its heyday and if we keep getting games that have engrossing stories or imaginative gameplay then I'll be waiting with my bucket and spade.