Always-online Mythbuster

[w00tage]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

To suggest that Blizzard Has a monopoly is like saying "ford has a monopoly on ford cars".

It is ridicules. There are plenty of alternatives. They have to compete on equal grounds with every other form of entertainment. To suggest "Diablo 3 is the only entertainment I can buy" is just dumb. You dont have to buy Diablo 3. It solves a single task of entertaining. It has to compete on the same lvl as all other forms of entertainment.

Secondly:
The market isn't a democracy. It doesn't sway to what most people like. It sways to what pays the most. I assure you that you would get the most people to love a game if it were free.

Umm, Ford and every other manufacturer have IP monopolies on anything they can get. Their core components (the internal combustion engine, etc.) have long gone into public domain, or they assuredly WOULD have IP monopolies on "Ford cars with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES - MUCH BETTER THAN STEAM ENGINES OR HARNESSED SQUIRRELS LIKE OUR COMPETITORS USE!!".

Blizzard has a monopoly on the IP for Diablo 3. That's a separate and distinct IP with its own characteristics that are sufficient to distinguish it from any other IP, or they could not have obtained IP rights on it. Your generalization about D3 competing with every other form of entertainment misses the entire point of allowing IP rights in the first place, which is to support the creation of improved products *which the consumer is intended to choose over the competition's products*. In effect, the point of IP is to support the creation of products for which there is no direct competition in an endless game of leapfrog, as that's viewed as the best way to promote progress.

tldr; Yes, Diablo 3 is intended to be a choice unlike any other choice. I don't like chocolate or coffee ice cream, so when the holder of the vanilla ice cream patent decides I need to have a webcam on when I eat it so they can watch me and record my reactions, I have every right to b*tch.

Secondly, the market isn't a democracy, it's an artifice intended to fulfill consumer needs by providing resources for providers. Its express purpose is to serve us consumers through the providers, and competition is how one provider's oversight or bad decision which blocks part of the market from getting what they need is overcome - a competitor can identify the missing element and produce an improved version.

Consumer choice is supposed to be served by the competitive mechanic, but the instant IP is granted, that's out of the picture. It's up to the monopoly to collect the information on the consumer needs they have not fulfilled, and frankly, monopolies don't have much incentive to do so. That's the only point I was trying to make - that these companies are not collecting the data which would have factored into their decision on forced-online mode.

That is bogus.

Diablo 3 isn't an internal combustion engine. The genre in it self might be but they dont have control over that. Blizzard own their franchisee just like ford owns their own mark. Diablo 3 is nothing more than a name, not an actual technology.

I reject your false analogy.

... I reject your contention that my analogy is false, and also any arguments you may pose that don't include an actual understanding of the fact that IP is intended to create monopolies, which by definition exclude competition.

 

[newdarkcloud]

The problem I have with always-online DRM is that I still can't comprehend the logic behind it.

It pisses off consumers.
It causes tons of problems at launch.
It prevents consumers from using a product they legitimately own should their internet go down for awhile (or if they live on a college campus with shitty internet).
The effect it has on piracy is temporary at best.
You don't need it for the auction house.

There are several logical reasons why it would be a bad idea, which people pointed out to Blizzard. But they did it anyway.
I can't even blame this on Activision, because (as far as I know) they have never before used DRM schemes and stay functionally separate from Blizzard for the most part.

 

[newdarkcloud]

The problem I have with always-online DRM is that I still can't comprehend the logic behind it.

It pisses off consumers.
It causes tons of problems at launch.
It prevents consumers from using a product they legitimately own should their internet go down for awhile (or if they live on a college campus with shitty internet).
The effect it has on piracy is temporary at best.
You don't need it for the auction house.

There are several logical reasons why it would be a bad idea, which people pointed out to Blizzard. But they did it anyway.
I can't even blame this on Activision, because (as far as I know) they have never before used DRM schemes and stay functionally separate from Blizzard for the most part.

Well it is an attempt to establish a connection between games.

Think of when steam first came out, and how it wasn't much cept a crappy DRM. Now look at where they could take this online system. Ubi is trying the same thing with their Uplay. There is potential to add something by making everything part of it.

It is also about piracy, but piracy isn't the main goal. The main goal is to change games into an overall service. It has potential for good as well as bad.

Wait, doesn't Steam have an offline mode. Meaning that you don't need to be online to play your games.

I'm not against the prospect of having all of my games in one convenient list. But the end user really should be considered when making decisions like this. They are the ones that make/break a company in the end. A constant connection may not be asking for much, but not everyone has a stable internet connection. That reduces the number of people in your target audience, which is always a bad thing.

 

[w00tage]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

To suggest that Blizzard Has a monopoly is like saying "ford has a monopoly on ford cars".

It is ridicules. There are plenty of alternatives. They have to compete on equal grounds with every other form of entertainment. To suggest "Diablo 3 is the only entertainment I can buy" is just dumb. You dont have to buy Diablo 3. It solves a single task of entertaining. It has to compete on the same lvl as all other forms of entertainment.

Secondly:
The market isn't a democracy. It doesn't sway to what most people like. It sways to what pays the most. I assure you that you would get the most people to love a game if it were free.

Umm, Ford and every other manufacturer have IP monopolies on anything they can get. Their core components (the internal combustion engine, etc.) have long gone into public domain, or they assuredly WOULD have IP monopolies on "Ford cars with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES - MUCH BETTER THAN STEAM ENGINES OR HARNESSED SQUIRRELS LIKE OUR COMPETITORS USE!!".

Blizzard has a monopoly on the IP for Diablo 3. That's a separate and distinct IP with its own characteristics that are sufficient to distinguish it from any other IP, or they could not have obtained IP rights on it. Your generalization about D3 competing with every other form of entertainment misses the entire point of allowing IP rights in the first place, which is to support the creation of improved products *which the consumer is intended to choose over the competition's products*. In effect, the point of IP is to support the creation of products for which there is no direct competition in an endless game of leapfrog, as that's viewed as the best way to promote progress.

tldr; Yes, Diablo 3 is intended to be a choice unlike any other choice. I don't like chocolate or coffee ice cream, so when the holder of the vanilla ice cream patent decides I need to have a webcam on when I eat it so they can watch me and record my reactions, I have every right to b*tch.

Secondly, the market isn't a democracy, it's an artifice intended to fulfill consumer needs by providing resources for providers. Its express purpose is to serve us consumers through the providers, and competition is how one provider's oversight or bad decision which blocks part of the market from getting what they need is overcome - a competitor can identify the missing element and produce an improved version.

Consumer choice is supposed to be served by the competitive mechanic, but the instant IP is granted, that's out of the picture. It's up to the monopoly to collect the information on the consumer needs they have not fulfilled, and frankly, monopolies don't have much incentive to do so. That's the only point I was trying to make - that these companies are not collecting the data which would have factored into their decision on forced-online mode.

That is bogus.

Diablo 3 isn't an internal combustion engine. The genre in it self might be but they dont have control over that. Blizzard own their franchisee just like ford owns their own mark. Diablo 3 is nothing more than a name, not an actual technology.

I reject your false analogy.

... I reject your contention that my analogy is false, and also any arguments you may pose that don't include an actual understanding of the fact that IP is intended to create monopolies, which by definition exclude competition.

So by your definition anything with an IP has a monopoly?
I dont think that word means what you think it means.

So by your definition, any products that fit into the same-shaped market hole are competitors? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Edit: also yes, anything with an IP has a monopoly. I will stipulate that I disagree with granting IP all over the friggin' place for crap that doesn't matter, which has been the trend these past 20 years, but the fact is entertainment publishers have gotten hold of it, and every game publisher that has IP stands ready to sue over it.