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

[kouriichi]

I dont see a problem with it.
Most people have a constant internet connection.
And for those who have an internet that might just die at random times,
theres a good chance it auto-saves your progress every so often, or that it saves important data (inventory, checkpoints, portals) as the game is disconnecting.

They probably have measures for things like this happening.
And im glad theyre making it hard for hackers. Its not just the fact that it will take months for them to crack the game, but every time a new patch is released, they have to wait for it to be Re-cracked.

Its a constant problem for them. And thats good. Because eventually the number of pirates will shrink, from everyone, to those who can afford games but dont wanna pay, to those who are willing to work for it, and ending with those who have no other way of obtaining it.

Not all pirates are bad, or doing it for the wrong reasons. But we have to make it trouble for those that are. I mean, most pirates can barely crack something without their hands being held, let alone creating or accessing a false Blizzard server.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Client server 101 dude, don't trust the client, all logic is on the server. Poof, instant security. Even with full access to the server code if it is programmed correctly there is NOTHING a client can do that can compromise it.

That's actually what he is saying.

That offline mode is not possible without them copying some server data to client machine. You know, like the character data. Thus they decided to not copy such data to client ever.

No that isn't what he is saying at all. What he is saying is that he has so little confidence in their server security that if people had access to the stripped down version needed to play single player they would instantly figure out how to break it.

More than 60% of the worlds web servers run on Apache which is open source software.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/06/16/june-2010-web-server-survey.html

Not only is the compiled binary available to potential hackers but the source code that went into making the binary is as well.

His reasoning is made up bullshit.

If they allow offline mode then blizzard/ea can't farm personal information, can't market to those players, and can't push the real money auction house. That is the only reason for a lack of offline mode. The sliminess on the part of the company representatives and their blatant disrespect for the gaming community is more upsetting than game features themselves.

 

[newwiseman]

That's a fucking lie, an online mode where your character is stored on a server and an offline mode where your character are stored locally are to completely different things. Ditching single player does nothing to discourage hackers, it's a BS excuse to calm people who don't know anything down.

I'm not against the always on, I don't really have a problem with it since I wanted Diablo 3 for battle net play anyway. But I am against companies flat out spouting BS.

 

[OMGIllithan]

This is not about genre choice or game mechanics, it's about the downright awful combination of denial of access tagged with forcing gamers to play a certain (more costly) way. I have yet to hear one concrete reason as to why this DRM decision is good for the gamer.

It helps protect a developers games so that they can make them more balanced and fair. Also, it will reduce piracy so that developers can me more confident on taking in enough income to produce more great games for all gamers.

Well, that was easy.

 

[PingoBlack]

More than 60% of the worlds web servers run on Apache which is open source software.

Not only is the compiled binary available to potential hackers but the source code that went into making the binary is as well.

His reasoning is made up bullshit.

If they allow offline mode then blizzard/ea can't farm personal information, can't market to those players, and can't push the real money auction house. That is the only reason for a lack of offline mode. The sliminess on the part of the company representatives and their blatant disrespect for the gaming community is more upsetting than game features themselves.

OK ... You are now comparing apples and oranges. Apache based web servers were actually the most widely thought of reason for breach of PSN security. You know the one that caused all the Sony bruhaha?

Yes, of course they want people online. They want alternative source of income, they are a business. But your perceived disrespect is pure entitlement syndrome. If you don't agree with requirements on box or you don't meet them, like "Internet connection required", just don't buy it.

 

[OMGIllithan]

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.

 

[El Luck]

...What the fuck were Blizzard thinking putting this guy in charge?

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Why is it so damn hard to keep the "Always-online" DRM while still letting me PLAY BY MYSELF! I do feel bad for the people who don't have constant internet access, but I would be perfectly fine if I had to always be connected to battle.net as long as it means I can still play single-player. The way Blizzard is talking, they didn't even bother allowing that. Because it's playing their game the wrong way.

 

[OMGIllithan]

That's a fucking lie, an online mode where your character is stored on a server and an offline mode where your character are stored locally are to completely different things. Ditching single player does nothing to discourage hackers, it's a BS excuse to calm people who don't know anything down.

I'm not against the always on, I don't really have a problem with it since I wanted Diablo 3 for battle net play anyway. But I am against companies flat out spouting BS.

Blizzard already claimed why they didn't want to do separate multiplayer and single player, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with. They're talking from the standpoint where with one account of characters, they can't allow you to take it offline because that would mean they would need to run the server for the game on your side. Completely straightforward if you ask me.

 

[Agayek]

Dude is spinning so hard that if he was hooked up to a turbine he could solve the world's energy problems.

[quote]Essentially we would have to put our server architecture onto the client so that it can run its own personal server.[/QUOTE]

Man I hope this guy didn't touch any of the code for the game because if that is what he truly believes I wouldn't trust him to make a sine curve on a graphing calculator.

Client server 101 dude, don't trust the client, all logic is on the server. Poof, instant security. Even with full access to the server code if it is programmed correctly there is NOTHING a client can do that can compromise it.

What this guy is advocating is security through obscurity and it might slightly slow down potential hackers it is never a long term security strategy.

How about a compromise, you have your little closed system and make your money, then in a few months release a "patch" that adds offline single and multiplayer. Then I'll pick up the game, otherwise no sale.[/quote]

Are you serious? I mean really, you're ragging on him for not trusting the client by telling him to not trust the client.

What they've already established is a standard client-server setup, where all of the security and other shenanigans are held on the server. If they were to allow an offline mode, they would have to take that server code and put it on the client, which would make hacking the game an order of magnitude easier. What he's saying is that they want to combat hacking by separating the necessary game mechanics from the client so it's not freely available to everyone who plays the game.

Now, the way they're going about it is ridiculously stupid IMO, and it's all about protecting their bottom line, but it does hold up to scrutiny from a security standpoint. I'm probably not going to buy the game cuz I can't stand always on DRM, and this reasoning is a fairly blatant attempt to put a positive spin on a terribly anti-consumer move, but it does have some level of merit.

 

[SpcyhknBC]

Blizzard is doing what they think is best for their game, plain and simple. They could be lying through their teeth, or everything they've said is the truth. Sometimes I wonder why game companies try to defend their decisions every time a new group of people complain about a design decision. If you as a consumer don't like a design decision, don't purchase the game.

The fact of the matter is that internet connections are the new game requirement. Very soon they might become the only requirement if game streaming services manage to take a significant chunk of the market. For all the people out there who have shoddy internet connections and can't play the game because of it, maybe you should invest in a better internet connection. If I couldn't play a game because I needed a new graphics card, I'd go back to the store and either buy a new card or return the game. At the moment, you can't always get a better internet provider but sometimes you just have to wait.

I most likely won't be getting D3 not because of the internet requirement, but because I wasn't impressed by SC2, I haven't even finished it because it didn't hook me, and I worry that D3 will be very similar. I loved getting a new game, reading all the manuals and pages of history and then playing through the game to get the rich story. SC2 came with no detailed histories, no new insights. If I want to read game lore now, I just go to the wiki.

 

[newwiseman]

That's a fucking lie, an online mode where your character is stored on a server and an offline mode where your character are stored locally are to completely different things. Ditching single player does nothing to discourage hackers, it's a BS excuse to calm people who don't know anything down.

I'm not against the always on, I don't really have a problem with it since I wanted Diablo 3 for battle net play anyway. But I am against companies flat out spouting BS.

Blizzard already claimed why they didn't want to do separate multiplayer and single player, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with. They're talking from the standpoint where with one account of characters, they can't allow you to take it offline because that would mean they would need to run the server for the game on your side. Completely straightforward if you ask me.

Two entirely separate characters is how it worked in Diablo 2, and it would had been nothing to duplicate that. You had a Battle Net character and then you had an offline/Lan character that was stored locally. Their whole approach is a facade.

 

[balberoy]

I don't care what Blizzard is doing anymore. They earn tons of money. Actually they sold so much because people cracked SC and WC3 for Lan Parties and bought them afterwords cause those games were just cool. Or they bought WoW or SC II, even if they just had cracked copies till then form older games.

So to say hackers are to blame is the wrong way. And there is absolutly no data that backs up that DRM stops hackers. People who want to buy, buy games. People who wanna hack games hack them. The DRM doesn't matter.

It just fucks up "US" as legal customers. For me those measures are a direct hit to my fun I have with a game or a company. A company wich does not have my standards won't be bought.

Till now EA, Activision, Ubisoft and probably Bethesda (as a developer) all made crystal clear that they all want online DRM. So I wont buy any games from them anymore, till they change.

They should stop to treat their customers as thiefs god damnit, I pay money and I have rights as well. As long as they suck they trade a fucking DRM against a paying customer, since Diablo.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

More than 60% of the worlds web servers run on Apache which is open source software.

Not only is the compiled binary available to potential hackers but the source code that went into making the binary is as well.

His reasoning is made up bullshit.

If they allow offline mode then blizzard/ea can't farm personal information, can't market to those players, and can't push the real money auction house. That is the only reason for a lack of offline mode. The sliminess on the part of the company representatives and their blatant disrespect for the gaming community is more upsetting than game features themselves.

OK ... You are now comparing apples and oranges. Apache based web servers were actually the most widely thought of reason for breach of PSN security. You know the one that caused all the Sony bruhaha?

Yes, of course they want people online. They want alternative source of income, they are a business. But your perceived disrespect is pure entitlement syndrome. If you don't agree with requirements on box or you don't meet them, like "Internet connection required", just don't buy it.

Sony had servers that weren't updated in years, that were vulnerable to ancient and well known exploits. It doesn't matter how thick the bolts are on the vault door, if the manager forgets to lock it when he goes home. No level of security will make up for poor administration.

So why can't they come out and say it? "We want people online because it makes us more money. We decided to not include offline mode because people playing offline don't make us as much money."

Thats all, its honest, its respectful, and people might not like it but you can't really argue with it.

Torchlight 2 yes, Diablo 3 NO.

 

[Andrew_Eisen]

Simple problem. Simple solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnmIJKBoXIM


Andrew Eisen

 

[Bostur]

That's a fucking lie, an online mode where your character is stored on a server and an offline mode where your character are stored locally are to completely different things. Ditching single player does nothing to discourage hackers, it's a BS excuse to calm people who don't know anything down.

I'm not against the always on, I don't really have a problem with it since I wanted Diablo 3 for battle net play anyway. But I am against companies flat out spouting BS.

Blizzard already claimed why they didn't want to do separate multiplayer and single player, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with. They're talking from the standpoint where with one account of characters, they can't allow you to take it offline because that would mean they would need to run the server for the game on your side. Completely straightforward if you ask me.

Of course they can. They would just need to make a distinction between offline characters, and officially supported online characters. One category would be stored offline and never allowed to play multiplayer, the other category would be stored on Blizzard servers and require online access.

They can do it easily, but they probably wont because offline characters don't support the new model that they would like to push forward.

 

[ciasteczkowyp]

as I stated previously on forum:
a) Great thing for every honest battle.net player
b) The game won't die after a year or so when 1 billion dupes and cheats pop up
c) Hackerfagz will have a hard time

all the rage has no point in this case, this is a always online always multiplayer game.

 

[Braedan]

Well I have a solution that wouldn't piss off your customers as much...

How about the ability to make offline, and online characters. The online characters require an internet connection to be played, and the offline simply can't be used on Battle.net.

Works no? Most people have multiple characters anyways.

I'm sure it could be cracked, but EVERYTHING gets cracked.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The biggest problem I have with this explanation is who cares if people cheat in a single player game? It's only their gaming experience that they're ruining anyway. So if they want to ruin their gaming experience who gives a shit? And I fail to see how this is going to stop people from cheating in the multiplayer.

"We've always viewed it as an online game - the game's not really being played right if it's not online, so when we have that specific question of why are we allowing it? Because that's the best experience, why would you want it any other way?"

Because some of us don't play well with others, nor do we want to.