Diablo 3 "Always Online" Requirement Helps Fight Hackers, Says Blizzard

[Griffolion]

I'm not a hacker and my internet connection is stable, therefore this does not affect me. Flame shield, engage!

However, "most people" isn't everyone, and it's a little disappointing that Blizzard couldn't come up with a better way to stop people cheating than dictating how people play the game.

Most people will never be everyone. Even in 20 years it will never be everyone. How many people of everyone do you propose it be until its enough of everyone?

 

[Smiles]

Plain and simple we deal with this with steam we can deal with this in blizzard. If you lose progression cause you didn't save not anybodies fault besides yourself.

yeah but at least steam lets you play your single player games you've purchased offline. My internet crashed the other day and didn't interrupt the game I was playing.

 

[marurder]

I live in China, the way WOW works is I am automatically directed to make a Chinese account and thus bound by the limitations. This would restrict me in the same ways. Now, WOW is an online game of course. But I really do prefer single player. With automatically and forcibly being put into the "Chinese" column, OR being forced to use a proxy (or simply forgetting to turn the one I use off), I may be seen as a undesired element or assumed hacker. Not to forget that China has and DOES block access to some foreign games. I wont buy for these reasons. I don't care about cheaters. This is just a pathetic attempt to garner support for an already unpopular policy. I am all for the industry moving forward. But this isn't the right direction, CONSTANT internet access is bad. Checks when you open the program or when you use CERTAIN features. You could make 2 kinds of characters as done before (single player and multi) it is a tried and tested method with positive results. How can a hacker ruin my single player?

 

[Signa]

And how does

I love all the double-speak. In the end, it's not about piracy or cheaters or modders, it's about protecting Blizzard's bottom line. If there is a chance in hell that a player could create a high-level item without waiting for it to drop, Blizzard will lose the money they have their hearts set on.

How does that even make sense? You make it sound as though trying to make a fair and safe community is money grubbing.

How does it NOT make sense? I assume if you are wanting to play Diablo 3, you did play Diablo 2 in the past? When did your adventures in single player ever diminish the quality of the game for other players?

If they wanted "fair and safe" they'd have given us single player mode or lan play. This is just a bullshit excuse to say "fuck you" to all of us who know better.

 

[PingoBlack]

If they wanted "fair and safe" they'd have given us single player mode or lan play. This is just a bullshit excuse to say "fuck you" to all of us who know better.

How does that make any sense?

Fair: You pay for what is announced in advance, you know what you buy. Since Blizzard clearly stated multiple times it will be an online game only, I don't get how you think it would be unfair. Unless you are suffering from entitlement problems, that is.

Safe: The model chosen is safe. Debate all you want, it is safe to store important data on servers only.

LAN: The silliest thing ever. Do people really know that little about how IP protocol works? LAN and internet are THE SAME TECHNOLOGY! IP to IP direct connection works on LAN or WAN. So LAN only game play does not exist any longer. Everything is IP nowadays. What you are demanding is UNAUTHENTICATED game play over network.

 

[the_green_dragon]

It's just like a MMO game then. no ionternet, no play

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

I'm still counting the amount of dipshits who're embracing this always-on insanity and making an outright mockery of D2 fans with substandard internet, sardonically sympathizing with them for not having a stellar LUXURY ITEM.

Yeah, you know what? Fuck you. Everyone has the right to brag, but no one likes being proverbially urinated on when they just got beaten, raped, ejaculated on and defecated on just because they live in shantytowns or is homeless.

The one bloody instance that made me understand why Charles Manson killed rich people.

 

[zentario]

If b) is just a) minus the server code, then you contradict your own argument for cutting single player. The player still can play the game offline, but they don't have that code that will allegedly let hackers break into Diablo 3

When the whole logic (like Item IDs, AI of the monsters etc) is on the server side
and you add the server side to the single player, you *can* find out how it works.

The only way is to have a completely *different* software design how you do it
in single player, hence: the complete new game. All the internal stuff must be
completely changed, so it differs _technically_ from the server code. Everything
from AI of the monster, to the item handling has to be rewritten.

1) Except those systems with hacking/cheating/cheating aren't part of the game economy Blizzard wants to protect. They are isolated and not contributing to the hacking/duping BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ON BNET 2.0.

But if you can see it in your *local* code, you know how to attack it *on the server*.
That's the reason banking and other high sensitive areas have multiple software
designs, that only interact with interfaces. Even their teams don't know how the others
work. If they want to avoid it, they would have to go that route. If the local part would
be cracked, it wouldn't have any information in how the server side works.

Simply put: The more grind, the longer each item will retain its value, which means more transactions. Yes, Blizzard has an incentive to do that.

It's grinding if the thing you need to do isn't putting your character in danger.
Diablo had its grinding, and it was part of the game, but most of the times you
simply tried not do die. Let's see how the "grinding" part is designed, I will give
them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[aescuder]

Yeah, you know what? Fuck you. Everyone has the right to brag, but no one likes being proverbially urinated on when they just got beaten, raped, ejaculated on and defecated on just because they live in shantytowns or is homeless.

yeah f**k blizzard for preventing all the hobos from a great single player experience!

If you're homeless or incredibly poor then blizzard games probably shouldn't be in your top priority list...I would put "find a home" or "get a job" over "videogames".


just saying.

 

[Babitz]

Diablo 3 confirmed for MMO.

 

[zentario]

Not that I condone piracy but crap like this is just asking for it. Oh well, I've been slowly turn off of Blizzard games for awhile. This is just one of the final nails in the coffin. The only game I will be buying of theirs now is Starcraft (assuming they don't make it always online too).

Based on the current state of things, Starcraft2 is playable locally with some
"help" from the net. Playing "on line" is different beast, and I wont go there.
It took a year to make a "lan emu" to work, somehow. Questionable sources, of course.

Instead of pounding Blizzard, I would rather see someone else showing the world,
that you can write a Diablo-esque thing with local play _and_ make a buck.

The makers of Torchlight got money from a chinese MMO gigant after releasing
their game. It doesn't seems that this area of games "brings in the dough"
the way people claim it does.

 

[rmb1983]

Please stop this pathetic entitlement syndrome. Do it for the children!

It isn't a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of them removing options all the while casually assuring everyone they're still there. You're not going to succeed in making anyone believe the game still, realistically, has a single-player element if it requires a constant online connection just to partake in said element. While internet is fairly accessible across the majority of the planet, there's still quite a bit of "dead space" (as I prefer to call it). Perhaps you can read up on some of the previous points others brought up regarding connectivity issues/limitations before you so easily dismiss anyone's unease over the requirement as an entitlement issue.
And with the supposition that you missed it, here's Rouzeki's link once more: http://broadbandmap.gov/technology
Don't even take my word for it, that link alone speaks volumes.

Guys ... stop this reverse logic. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But do not justify stealing stuff.

Again, not the case. People are stating that forcing legitimate gamers into corners with unforgiving DRM scenarios doesn't discourage hacking, simply encourages it. Anyone who's stuck being unable to climb the brick wall (so to speak) is more likely to turn to someone who can help them over.
Stealing isn't being justified; people are shaking their heads that Blizzard is all but daring hackers and pirates to steal from them, at this point.

OT: I've always mainly been a single-player fan of the Diablo franchise. Even with some of the absurd immunity combinations eventually added, I still enjoyed and quite thoroughly trounced all difficulty levels with a wide variety of classes/specs. Multiplayer turned me off to itself just fine on its own...I gave it more than its fair share, and while the cheaters were a part of my disdain, a good half of the legitimate community wasn't really any better (as far as their general attitudes towards others), so I ended up sticking to just playing with friends.
You can supplant all the justification you like, here, but there is no actual good reason for an offline single-player mode to not exist. The fact that they're cutting it out, for any reason, is just a testament to laziness. This is almost as nonsensical as the BF3 PC out-of-game server list fiasco.

 

[PingoBlack]

It isn't a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of them removing options all the while casually assuring everyone they're still there. You're not going to succeed in making anyone believe the game still, realistically, has a single-player element if it requires a constant online connection just to partake in said element.

They couldn't remove options since it was not sold yet! Don't talk nonsense. They would be at fault if they removed something AFTER you purchased the license.

I never claimed it was a single player game, I stated the exact opposite. The very fact you think it is a single player offline game is your entitlement speaking. Diablo 2 was ... Diablo 3 is not.

Again, not the case. People are stating that forcing legitimate gamers into corners with unforgiving DRM scenarios doesn't discourage hacking, simply encourages it. Anyone who's stuck being unable to climb the brick wall (so to speak) is more likely to turn to someone who can help them over.

You can supplant all the justification you like, here, but there is no actual good reason for an offline single-player mode to not exist. The fact that they're cutting it out, for any reason, is just a testament to laziness. This is almost as nonsensical as the BF3 PC out-of-game server list fiasco.

It does not encourage hacking, you are saying nonsense. It does however make it much much harder since most important data is stored remotely. You are NOT climbing a brick wall. You are however having trouble consolidating your desire vs. what Blizzard is offering. You are complaining about a brick wall that is not even in your way.

The actual good reason is simple. Blizzard have decided they do not want to support that mode of game play. Whatever their reasoning be ... It is the reason, it's that simple.

Blizzard, the actual people producing the game, get to make decisions about their project. Shocking really! Oh wait ...

 

[zentario]

The actual good reason is simple. Blizzard have decided they do not want to support that mode of game play. Whatever their reasoning be ... It is the reason, it's that simple.

If I look at the net and forums, I could guess: to remove the "overzealot" critics .)
People who don't care and who are simply happy to have quality entertainment
at their fingers are the 'new black'. You can like that or not.

Maybe they hope the "critics" simply go away, and they will. How many people
claimed that the "new" Command&Conquer was a dumped down version of the old
C&C for "casual" players? For others, C&C 4 was simply a wrongly balanced,
bug ridden game, and it is assumed it was the poorest selling of all.

A quite nasty way to end a franchise, in this case for EA. But who in the
world is questioning that? If people want to do stupid things, its their money.

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

If you're homeless or incredibly poor then blizzard games probably shouldn't be in your top priority list...I would put "find a home" or "get a job" over "videogames".


just saying.

But I'm not speaking literally here now, am I? Besides, whole countries like most of southeast asia has absolutely shitty internet connections that can hardly stay up without it stalling more than once a day. How do you expect the people there to tell their governments to "find a home" or "get a job"? Do you just openly "declare pity" to those poor sewer rats about how their castles are made out of scrap metal, even though they asked their kings for better material?

Or if we're just talking about towns here, do you really think ISPs would give a shit about their customer complaints demanding better internet stability, especially when they have more than enough resources to push for that kind of thing?

 

[PingoBlack]

Maybe they hope the "critics" simply go away, and they will. How many people
claimed that the "new" Command&Conquer was a dumped down version of the old
C&C for "casual" players? For others, C&C 4 was simply a wrongly balanced,
bug ridden game, and it is assumed it was the poorest selling of all.

A quite nasty way to end a franchise, in this case for EA. But who in the
world is questioning that? If people want to do stupid things, its their money.

I'm saying they have expected the critics. They still made a decision they think is best and excepted they will lose some customers.

Up to you as a consumer is if you wanna accept that and buy the product ... or not. But you cannot possibly claim, as some posters did, that they do not have the right to make that decision.

Future will tell if they were right or wrong, no question. The actual sales of Diablo 3 will be the definitive answer. We shall see.

 

[OMGIllithan]

And how does

I love all the double-speak. In the end, it's not about piracy or cheaters or modders, it's about protecting Blizzard's bottom line. If there is a chance in hell that a player could create a high-level item without waiting for it to drop, Blizzard will lose the money they have their hearts set on.

How does that even make sense? You make it sound as though trying to make a fair and safe community is money grubbing.

How does it NOT make sense? I assume if you are wanting to play Diablo 3, you did play Diablo 2 in the past? When did your adventures in single player ever diminish the quality of the game for other players?

If they wanted "fair and safe" they'd have given us single player mode or lan play. This is just a bullshit excuse to say "fuck you" to all of us who know better.

I'm not sure what you think you "know better" but with your attitude it's obvious you didn't play D2 online much or at all. D2 was riddled with hacks and cheats that really hurt the experience. It wasn't uncommon for items to disappear from your inventory because you traded for a duped item. So yes, creating an item online would lead to an unbalanced economy and ruin the game for those involved in that community, hence my confusion about your original statement.

Now, how this is relevant to single player? The more information you store on a person's machine, the more mining a person can do to figure out how to crack the system. Blizzard has already stated that they didn't want to run two separate accounts so that the community wouldn't be splintered. This article talked about how under that model, it wouldn't be reasonable to do single player because they would have to store server code on the client's machine. Pretty straight forward.

"But I want my single player!" You'll still have it. I've you've ever played D2 online you'll know that you can create your own games and put a password on them so that others can't join. This way, you can play in peace away from everyone else if you want to. By doing it this way, its slightly to hardly inconveniencing everyone to make sure that those looking forward to playing cooperatively online have a scam/hack free experience. If your opinion is still "fuck multiplayer I don't give a shit about that," then you're selfish and I'm done reasoning with you.

 

[OMGIllithan]

I stand by what Mr. Wilson said:
internet connections were hardly rare

http://broadbandmap.gov/technology

here. explore with the map, and switch on and off the buttons. get a feel for how many people have to resort to wii-fi signals for a connection better than dial up- and we all know how AMAZING wii-fi is for gaming that's always-online.

internet CONNECTIONS aren't rare now, but I can vouch for US broadband technology, short of mobile wireless signals, still being more uncommon then one would expect.

If you think you need broadband to run Diablo than you're insane. I ran D2 on dial up the whole time I played it. Every household has a phone jack, and if yours doesn't than I suggest you likely have bigger problems in your life than figuring out how to play Diablo 3.

 

[aescuder]

If you're homeless or incredibly poor then blizzard games probably shouldn't be in your top priority list...I would put "find a home" or "get a job" over "videogames".


just saying.

But I'm not speaking literally here now, am I? Besides, whole countries like most of southeast asia has absolutely shitty internet connections that can hardly stay up without it stalling more than once a day. How do you expect the people there to tell their governments to "find a home" or "get a job"? Do you just openly "declare pity" to those poor sewer rats about how their castles are made out of scrap metal, even though they asked their kings for better material?

Or if we're just talking about towns here, do you really think ISPs would give a shit about their customer complaints demanding better internet stability, especially when they have more than enough resources to push for that kind of thing?

Ummm..I grew up in Davao City, Philippines, and still visit (which is South East Asia, in case you didn't know). And the internet infrastructure there is fine. Plus nobody actually buys original games there (and I mean NOBODY, $60 = 2700 pesos), only pirated games (yes they sell pirated/crack version games for a fraction of the actual retail cost), which mostly gets distributed to internet cafes as well, where even the really impoverished with no hardcore PCs can play the latest (sort of) games for a measly 15 pesos an hour.

wi-fi technology is fine and getting better, even in 3rd world countries. Seriously there are more people their with hacked Iphones then there is actual Iphones in my crappy state of Ohio.

so yeah don't worry about South East Asia or any Asian countries for that matter, lest you get caught talking out of your butt again.

No need to rage though, As I see it people still have plenty of options:

1. get better ISP
2. get mobile broadband (USB) sticks..for all the travellers out there
3. when internet does crap out take computer to a place with reliable internet source (cafe, friends house, school) for all you laptop owners, myself included.
4. connect to neighbors wi-fi. =D
5. or just simply wait for a month after the game is released. Somebody will definitely come up with an offline mode hack by then.
6. or Don't buy the game! shocker! that's right no one is forcing anyone to buy this game which is apparently the shittiest of the shit pile from planet shit.


P.S. of course ISPs give a shit, that's their job. They're in tough competition with half a dozen other guys.

 

[rmb1983]

They couldn't remove options since it was not sold yet! Don't talk nonsense. They would be at fault if they removed something AFTER you purchased the license.

Touché, sir. Even still...it's something that would be expected, given the genre, and the fact that they made very clear ages ago that it would be there.

I never claimed it was a single player game, I stated the exact opposite. The very fact you think it is a single player offline game is your entitlement speaking. Diablo 2 was ... Diablo 3 is not.

I didn't suggest that you said either; nor did I. I won't put words in your mouth, show me the same respect. I was very specific about the fact that the main reason people are miffed is because adding the online-requirement for play nixes out any offline single player, which some wish to have, for a variety of reasons (be it internet connectivity/access issues, etc.).

It does not encourage hacking, you are saying nonsense. It does however make it much much harder since most important data is stored remotely. You are NOT climbing a brick wall. You are however having trouble consolidating your desire vs. what Blizzard is offering. You are complaining about a brick wall that is not even in your way.

Then I'll clarify:
Making the idea of hacking said system harder will attract more attention to it, and as such, more hackers will attempt to crack it (be it for bragging rights, the challenge; it doesn't matter). In the same breath, removing a feature that many would rather see left in the final product and pigeon-holing some customers into not being able to use the product entirely is going to have them either look for somewhere else to spend their money, or alternative means to achieve what they want. It's almost guaranteed that some of the former will also be some of the latter, so it's eventually going to get loose, and that'll be two ways Blizzard's bottom line will suffer.

The actual good reason is simple. Blizzard have decided they do not want to support that mode of game play. Whatever their reasoning be ... It is the reason, it's that simple.

That's...fair, to an extent. The problem is, this was a game play mode they were very adamant about including, and they turned around and changed their story. While that's their decision to make, it's still going to create backlash.
To be honest, I expected the same thing as they did with StarCraft II, at the very least. I may be a little disappointed in the choice, but I'm not really all that shocked.

Blizzard, the actual people producing the game, get to make decisions about their project. Shocking really! Oh wait ...

Being snide is not a valid point.