Diablo 3 "Always Online" Requirement Helps Fight Hackers, Says Blizzard
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Screw Blizzard. I'm no longer interested in Diablo 3. I'll stick to Torchlight and Torchlight 2 when it comes out.
Diablo was never a primarily online game, and I know of nobody who acted like it was. Yes, it had a very robust online element for multiplayer, but at its core it was a single player experience. So Mr. Wilson can take his game, and its requirements, and shove 'em.
Diablo was never a primarily online game, and I know of nobody who acted like it was. Yes, it had a very robust online element for multiplayer, but at its core it was a single player experience. So Mr. Wilson can take his game, and its requirements, and shove 'em.
can i give you a hug for being totally amazing?Aggieknight said:
(NOT sarcasm i completely agree, especially torchlight)
Yes, actually it does. You would need to recreate a copy of battle net and authenticate to that in order to play.balberoy said:
I'm not quite sure how the game gets more expensive? I mean, its still going to cost a flat $60 just like any other Blizzard game.balberoy said:
What it does bring is a stable online community free from hacks and dupes. If you've ever played D2, you know how horrible hacking was in that game. People constantly had items disappear from their inventory because they were traded duped items and got scammed.
So... no screwing up the game for other people online? That argument doesn't even make sense.balberoy said:
No. I mean, you're flat out wrong with this one.balberoy said:
See counterpoint all of them.balberoy said:
I just.... you haven't said anything in this post except that you think that mods are the reason that Diablo 2 stayed popular for so long, which simply isn't true. I'd debate with you if you want but you need to come up with more solid points.balberoy said:
What I find ironic is the fact that they say they can't/won't offer an offline single player experience because, it seems, they're too lazy to offer the players the choice to make a character that you could use offline, completely disconnected (hackable). That says volume to me.
I understand they don't want to give away their client/server architecture, but honestly do they think that won't be circumvented? Really? We'll hear from item dups, item cheaters/hackers that's a guarantee.
Obviously they just don't care. They want to make more money using that "I want to sell my crap" thing. It's that simple, period.
Lack of foresight, lack of customer understanding, lack of intelligence and forward thinking. Blizzard's games never really interested me except Diablo which I liked. A good hack and slash is always a good time sink, but now... Bleh.
The only great news in all this is the over-expensive money Blizzard would've charged me for their game will now be spent on Indie games.
Thank you Blizzard for your injection of money to the Indie scene, even if it's indirect and most likely unwanted.
I understand they don't want to give away their client/server architecture, but honestly do they think that won't be circumvented? Really? We'll hear from item dups, item cheaters/hackers that's a guarantee.
Obviously they just don't care. They want to make more money using that "I want to sell my crap" thing. It's that simple, period.
Lack of foresight, lack of customer understanding, lack of intelligence and forward thinking. Blizzard's games never really interested me except Diablo which I liked. A good hack and slash is always a good time sink, but now... Bleh.
The only great news in all this is the over-expensive money Blizzard would've charged me for their game will now be spent on Indie games.
Thank you Blizzard for your injection of money to the Indie scene, even if it's indirect and most likely unwanted.
Take note that "we" means people that didn't actually made the first or second ones. At least if I remember things correctly.
You know what? After trying to run devil's advocate for quiet a few of these stories, I don't care anymore. Blizzard is making a bold move and possibly changing the face of gaming and people are angry. People are always angry. I'm not going to get angry. People can hem and haw and shout and complain and say what they like and its not going to make any difference on anything.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that last bit; it's the crude, to the point of draconian, format of their DRM decision here that irritates me. I don't mind being charged extra on the purchase at point of sale to facilitate anti-piracy software or to cover projected losses due to piracy (though I would be surprised if sales prices did not already include contingencies -that strikes me as 'Budgeting 101' point) but forcing the player to maintain an Internet connection throughout play acts as a hidden, nonnegotiable 'anti-piracy subscription fee' that the player pays every time he plays the game.OMGIllithan said:
This seems too much to the point were I would not purchase the game. If the only way I was permitted to read a book at home during the daytime was to have every light in the house switched on then I'd read somewhere else or do something different. If Blizzard insists on seeing its customers continue to pay long after their initial purchase only to keep its own sales safe (as it does not solve earlier online Diablo player-experience problems: see later) then this will drive people away from purchasing in the first place thereby creating less revenue than if they had adopted less demanding constraints.
As to the 'balanced and fair' argument, well as you point out in your own excellent (I mean that genuinely) post [//www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.304833-Blizzard-Surprised-by-Reaction-to-Online-Only-Diablo-3?page=17#12245070] over on the 'Blizzard Surprised by Reaction...' thread, the frustration felt by many Diablo players (and that Blizzard sought to, in part, rectify through this DRM policy) was caused by the hacking and cheating that went on. 'Hacks and cheats' are not piracy [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_of_software], they are hacks and cheats; activities that can be performed through a legitimately purchased game or a pirated copy. Whilst this DRM approach might prevent those who would use pirated copies simply to play the game from doing so, it will not stop those intent on cheating their way to success, hence falling short on its intended improvements to player experience.
there's at least one more group of people: those who bought and played diablo 1 when it first came out, then diablo 2 and played it for 10 years, single and multiplayer. these people are long time hardcore fans. but now these people live without an internet connection at home. maybe they cant afford it, but probably they are in a rural area where none is available. they really WANT to play this game and have been thinking about it for years and years and discussing its potential with their friends, playing every titans quest and torchlight that comes out, modding d2 with crazy new shit, just because they love it, and now they are being told they CANNOT play it because the company wants to make more money. i am in this category.00slash00 said:
the whole "upgrade your wires" argument is such fucking bullshit. ISPs dont run lines in some rural areas because its not profitable. simple as that. it has nothing to do with what the consumer wants. so basically, this guy is telling me to move if i wanna play his game. a game which ive been waiting for for literally 10 years. all this is bad enough, but the arrogance this douche spews is something else.
btw, d2 single player was infinitely more fun to me than mp. i dont enjoy having all the loot taken and being rushed around, trading is not fun to me. i play games to progress in the story and level a guy up to get powerful. anything social in a game like that is practically a drawback to me, as it cheats me out of the experience of getting it myself. i only ever did LAN or private bnet games with friends, but obviously yr friends arent always available. all in all, i would just rather play single player about 90% of the time. why is this such a hard thing for some to understand? to say that d2 was a multiplayer focused game is just wrong.
"Well they shouldn't because pirates and hackers will pirate and hack anyways" is not a valid argument, and you need to stop being pissed at companies for that reason. What your saying is synonymous with "Well the school bully is going to beat me up anyways, so I might as well try to meet him after school."TheMadJack said:
you are correct, alot of the people who worked on the first games are the ones who make.... Tada.... Torchlight!thirion1850 said:
"Because that's the best experience, why would you want it any other way?"
Because you think its the best experience does not mean everyone else will. I love the gnaw of these developers who have made a ton of cash because they have had good games in the past but now only they know how a game should be played.
This all plays into Blizzard having that Diablo auction house for real cash.That's what its about, them making a killing off that.Not that they think its the best experience to play diablo on line.
Because you think its the best experience does not mean everyone else will. I love the gnaw of these developers who have made a ton of cash because they have had good games in the past but now only they know how a game should be played.
This all plays into Blizzard having that Diablo auction house for real cash.That's what its about, them making a killing off that.Not that they think its the best experience to play diablo on line.
Fighting hackers... Bull-SHIT!
They're using piracy and hacking as a scapegoat for the real reason they're taking away more control from gamers; they want to control the item market and force people into buying things on the Aucion House so they can get their cut of sales.
The ALSO want to deny offline play so people can't mod the game to make the rare items LESS rare than Blizz-Ack makes them. See, they're making the best items extremely rare to drive up the demand and price on the auction house, making for a bigger cut of the money for the publisher. A way for people to make these items more accessible like normal games is to mod it, but not with an online teather.
Congrats, Blizz-ack, you've become the mafia. Not only are you forcing people into an online service, you're once again giving pirates the better playing experience when they can play if their internet is down for the day while paying customers can't.
No company is worth supporting anymore by paying for games.
They're using piracy and hacking as a scapegoat for the real reason they're taking away more control from gamers; they want to control the item market and force people into buying things on the Aucion House so they can get their cut of sales.
The ALSO want to deny offline play so people can't mod the game to make the rare items LESS rare than Blizz-Ack makes them. See, they're making the best items extremely rare to drive up the demand and price on the auction house, making for a bigger cut of the money for the publisher. A way for people to make these items more accessible like normal games is to mod it, but not with an online teather.
Congrats, Blizz-ack, you've become the mafia. Not only are you forcing people into an online service, you're once again giving pirates the better playing experience when they can play if their internet is down for the day while paying customers can't.
No company is worth supporting anymore by paying for games.
It SLAYS ME when people say I'm being stupid or unreasonable about not trusting Blizzard here. First they contradicted themselves (meaning they either flat out lied or are incredibly stupid), and now they're dodging the issue entirely by trying to put a positive spin on it.
"See the benefits of always online DRM! Fewer hackers! Fewer cheaters! How does that not benefit you?"
Uh, Blizzard?
HOW IN THE FUCK COULD ONLINE ITEM DUPERS AND HACKERS HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON A SINGLE PLAYER GAME?
Blizzard claims that they cut LAN so hackers couldn't create hacks based on the server code there. BUT, this claim doesn't make any sense because: Having access to a copy or part of the server program doesn't help you WHEN YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE PART OF THE SERVER YOU NEED TO MODIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And if Blizzard can't prevent people from accessing their servers to that degree, they already have much bigger problems than hacked/duped items.
So this "justification" for eliminating LAN/Single Player is a load of bullshit.
"See the benefits of always online DRM! Fewer hackers! Fewer cheaters! How does that not benefit you?"
Uh, Blizzard?
HOW IN THE FUCK COULD ONLINE ITEM DUPERS AND HACKERS HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON A SINGLE PLAYER GAME?
Blizzard claims that they cut LAN so hackers couldn't create hacks based on the server code there. BUT, this claim doesn't make any sense because: Having access to a copy or part of the server program doesn't help you WHEN YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE PART OF THE SERVER YOU NEED TO MODIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
And if Blizzard can't prevent people from accessing their servers to that degree, they already have much bigger problems than hacked/duped items.
So this "justification" for eliminating LAN/Single Player is a load of bullshit.
This is awesome humor 
Now all we need is for Activision to go "hmm, there seems to be a high demand for this offline thing, bet we could sell it as DLC".
Now all we need is for Activision to go "hmm, there seems to be a high demand for this offline thing, bet we could sell it as DLC".
Alex Mayberry, the senior producer, says that piracy is one of the reasons for doing this.Odlus said:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-cannot-be-played-offline/
But y'know, that was said before the PR-muzzles were clamped on their mouths and they were all told to march out and lie about why they're doing things and what's possible. So hey, if believing the BS comforts you about purchasing an intentionally inferior version of the game, whatever makes you happy.