id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3


id Software Creative Director Tim Willits is a big fan of the "always on" DRM in Diablo 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Diablo-III-Pc/dp/B00178630A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313005065&sr=8-1] and believes Blizzard has the muscle to force gamers to love it.

The debate over the relative merits of Blizzard's decision to require an always-on internet connection in order to play Diablo 3 has been raging since the moment it came to light and will probably continue for months after the game's release. Supporters say it gives Blizzard more flexibility in how it approaches the game and that virtually all players will be online when they play anyway; those who are less-than-thrilled with the idea point out that despite the widely-held belief in internet ubiquity, not everyone has access to reliable, full-time connections and that making it a requirement for solo play is unreasonable and unfair.

One well-placed observer who's come out strongly on the pro-Blizzard side is Tim Willits, the creative director at id Software [http://www.idsoftware.com], a studio famed for its groundbreaking work in online gaming. He likes the idea, and he thinks that it could go a long way toward shaping the future of the game industry.

"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," he told Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-10-id-software-on-always-on-internet-debate] at last week's QuakeCon. "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."

Willits described himself as "a big proponent of always connected," saying that he and id Software fans in general are always online. "In the end, it's better for everybody. Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there," he said. "But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo 3] to make change."

"There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game," he added. "But it'll change."

In theory, I like the idea of a world in which everyone is connected to each other and the developers, who can use that persistence to build a community and a better game. But from a practical perspective, I have serious reservations about making a game's accessibility dependent entirely upon the condition of external servers [see Ubisoft for more on that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98927-Ubisoft-DRM-Authentication-Servers-Go-Down]] and excluding a potentially large number of gamers based solely upon where they live.

But it's also hard to argue that Willits isn't right. If Blizzard can make people stop worrying and learn to love the bomb - and if any company can pull that off, it's Blizzard - then you can be sure there will be plenty of other studios and publishers following closely behind. Like it or lump it, this is the future.


Permalink
 

sturryz

New member
Nov 17, 2007
504
0
0
It's like Id exists in some parallel universe where they didn't start becoming horrible and people care about what they say.

Next it's gonna be the Ethernet port that you surgically attach to your head, and must keep it plugged in at all times to play anything.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
If your paying $60 for a game, you should have the choice to play it however the fuck you want.

If this is the future, then I may have to stop playing games. Not because I want to stop, but because the publishers/developers will not let me play the games I buy.

And the reason for it is just fucking stupid. They doing it just because it lets them update automatically? What's wrong with simply having the launchers have a "check for updates" button? Why can't I decide what the game does on my system? The last thing I want are programs updating themselves without my knowledge.

But Blizzard will get away with it. Diablo 3 will sell like hot-cakes, just like all of Blizzard's other games. Sure people will complain, but chances are they'll just buy it anyway.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
As a european with about a second of "downtime" every minute or so(which still kicks me from ubidrm infected games every time), I have this to say:

Fuck that bullshit.
 

shintakie10

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,342
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
In theory, I like the idea of a world in which everyone is connected to each other and the developers, who can use that persistence to build a community and a better game. But from a practical perspective, I have serious reservations about making a game's accessibility dependent entirely upon the condition of external servers [see Ubisoft for more on that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98927-Ubisoft-DRM-Authentication-Servers-Go-Down]] and excluding a potentially large number of gamers based solely upon where they live.
Theres a minor difference between Ubisoft and Blizzard in this regard though. Blizzard has had since 2001 to figure out how to keep their servers up. If you ignore the WoW part of the equation then they've at least had since they started work on Starcraft 2 to figure out how to keep em up. Truth be told, I cant think of a time when I couldn't log onto Starcraft with the exception of a few maintenance windows here and there.

Ubisoft on the other hand...they decided to learn by doin in an environment that really wasn't the best choice for it and it bit them in the butt because of it.
 

Dorkmaster Flek

New member
Mar 13, 2008
262
0
0
No, I still call bullshit. All those positive points are great, and you can totally do that...but the online connection has to be optional. Auto-updating and all that fancy stuff can be there, but a single player game can't simply stop working if you don't have an Internet connection. That's bullshit and he knows it. The only thing that requires an always-on connection is the DRM angle, and he knows it. That's what the industry loves about it.
 

Zero_ctrl

New member
Feb 26, 2009
593
0
0
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Great Plains in the middle of the USA.
Our internet here sucks. Thanks.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
I'm sure these guys don't all have perfect internet connections at home, and I'm sure a few of them even like gaming on laptops on journeys. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

"Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated."

Gee, I wonder if there'S anoThEr service thAt does this but still has an offline Mode and doesn't boot you out of a game if your connection drops.
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
Asehujiko said:
As a european with about a second of "downtime" every minute or so(which still kicks me from ubidrm infected games every time), I have this to say:

Fuck that bullshit.
just out of curiosity, where in Europe do you live?

maybe i like playing on older versions of game, or want to OK every change that is made to my game.
 

vrbtny

Elite Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,959
0
41
Andy Chalk said:
id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3
The debate over the relative merits of Blizzard's decision to require an always-on internet connection in order to play Diablo 3 has been raging since the moment it came to light and will probably continue for months after the game's release.
I'm betting more like years. These are Blizzard fans we're talking about. I can imagine a forum post in 2016 called "Always-on DRM ruined Diablo 3!!" and the thread will go on for several pages with loads of people hating it, with the other half going "meh" and not caring.
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
Now that he said that, here's a guess the id is planning a game that requires an always-on connection.

Also, unrelated, how do you pronounce id? Each letter individually like you'd show an officer your I.D., or id like id, ego, superego?
 

Roserari

New member
Jul 11, 2011
227
0
0
So I want the customers to be punched in the gut when playing Diablo 3. ANd it's really a good idea because that means pirates are less likely to pirate the game.
 

Aspergo

New member
May 20, 2010
17
0
0
"If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."

"There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game," he added. "But it'll change."

I must say, thats quite a bad choice of words - as if gamers were cattle that dont know any better and can be lead by Industry as pleased.

Sorry, but "forcing people" to do something would spark quite an opposite action, eaven more denial. And somebody at Id Software better shut this guy up, cuz he surely doesnt know how to talk about the consumers.
 

Elamdri

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,481
0
0
Zero_ctrl said:
Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the Great Plains in the middle of the USA.
Our internet here sucks. Thanks.
Yeah, I got outta the midwest as fast as I could for pretty much that reason.
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
I have problems with what Tim Willits is saying.

1.
"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," he told Eurogamer at last week's QuakeCon. "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."
No it won't, I know if I don't want online always DRM i won't even bother buying it at all. I shouldn't have to jump through your hoops just to play a game. That's why I most of the time rather play a console, cause I don't have to deal with DRM (But Online passes are hurting that one).


2.
"In the end, it's better for everybody. Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there," he said. "But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo 3] to make change."
Steam does that and I don't have to be always online cause I can turn it to offline mood and go from there, and I know PC games have automatic updates with the launcher the game uses. No need to be "always on". It's just a stupid DRM method.

3.
"There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game," he added. "But it'll change."
I won't, if it uses online only i refuse to buy it period. And it's stupid gamers are so stupid that they will buy a game that hurts them with onwership rights cause they want to play it.

4.
Remember when the PSN went down for a month, yeah some PSN games needed you to be logged in to play it and when it was down you couldn't play them. And what if a power outage or some nature distare knocks out the servers for months on end or forever, they you are screwed

Also it feels like he is saying "Gamers are stupid and when they want something they will ignore restrictions and buy it anyway".

I don't know about most people but I have a internet connection that randomly drops, and I heard some people say just piggy back on a neighbors wifi which is illegal. The problem is no one will have the perfect connection that won't hickup and die.
 

aPod

New member
Jan 14, 2010
1,102
0
0
I'd buy the game and get the crack for it soon as it came out if I couldn't stay online all the time. Usually I can but my situation is not everyones situation.

What's good for you, might not be good for me.
 

Elamdri

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,481
0
0
Aspergo said:
Andy Chalk said:
"If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome."

"There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game," he added. "But it'll change."
I must say, thats quite a bad choice of words - as if gamers were cattle that dont know any better and can be lead by Industry as pleased.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the presses! Since when did gamers become not cattle?
 

ryo02

New member
Oct 8, 2007
819
0
0
"force" people to be allways on? and they dont see whats wrong with that?

sure diablo 3 will sell sure billzzard is a heavy weight and they will get away with it.
then others will try and they wont get away with it and wonder why they will probably blame pirates or something.

why did games ever have to get connected to the inernet T_T its nothing but patches pre order bonuses day one dlc and allways on drm bull.

IM NOT A CRIMINAL

this is why Im a console gamer but its coming to them aswell and I hate it.

they make it damn hard not to want to pirate (I dont pirate , I dont want to pirate , I dont condone it either , and dont plan to in the future)

the videogame industry is headed for another crash at this rate.

also I wont be playing diablo 3 ... never played any diablo games not my thing so heh sorry id.