id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3

[Firgof]

It's kind of funny that you would say that, safely nailed into your own single player shoes.

I choose not to play D2's online section because it's just worse than SP in a functional manner of speaking. I get less where I get more in Singleplayer. I get less lag, I get harassed less, I don't have to pay attention to my messages. I don't have to care at all about bots or any such thing. I can mod and hack to my heart's content. I can even save-scum if I really want to.

Now I play Counter-strike from time to time online. That's different. I'm not an "elitist" in any sense of the word; I don't refuse to buy games just because they're multiplayer and there are quite a few multiplayer games that I adore (BF 1942 having been one such great game). I've played a lot of online shooters: SW: Battlefront 2, CS:S, TF2, etc. but they just don't hold my attention as much as D2, X-Com, and so forth. I've played a lot of online/LAN RTS and TBS (Heroes and SC among my favorites). But I always come back to my bread and butter.

I understand why some people might find D2 multiplayer fun: they enjoy playing with their buddies and finding a greater variety of builds to come quest with you is good. Sometimes you even get to meet new people and build new friendships or rivalries. That's the distinction: I don't enjoy D2 multiplayer, but I recognize why its popular and why people enjoy it.

 

[TheDooD]

Well I guess Blizzard likes negative publicity. Basically hype your game up with udder bullshit nobody would like, piss off a majority of the fans and stir them into a frenzy of hatred that'll make outsiders buy it because they want to see if it is so bad.

Fuck you Blizzard I see through your games.

 

[StrixMaxima]

I am glad to say that I will not buy Diablo 3, just because the draconian and half-stupid business decisions they made public so far. I would love to play the game, but I'll stick to my guns on this one, just as I did on Starcraft 2.

Funny thing is: I bet there will be a playable pirate version, without any always-online crap, within a month after the release (yes, I am a pessimist, a week is more like it). Thus, the almighty Ubisoft Law will still apply: you only punish your legal customers with DRM.

If you asked me if I would ever rant about Blizzard 8 years ago, I would look at you with a VERY funny face. Heh, things change. My biggest disappointment is that Blizzard is using all its muscle not to change the gaming market in a good way, promoting a better developer-customer relationship while still keeping profits up (something perfectly possible). Instead, they chose the most narrow-sighted approach, and will try to make gamers bend over repeatedly if they want to play their games. It is a tragedy.

 

[Uriel_51]

Not a fan of this; gamers are like any crowd and that is to say the vast majority act like a herd. Having said that, Blizzard exists because of customer loyalty, blizzard exists because they put out products that people loved and wanted. When that changes, they loose customers. When we're gone, they're gone.

Blizzard has changed in my eyes over the last 6-8 years, and the stuff they've been up to lately has them in a perilous position as far as I'm concerned. I was on the fence about Diablo III and with this kind of shinnanigans, they're definitely not getting my money at launch. Later on down the line, perhaps, but I'm leaning towards the "Naw, not going to support that BS" side of the fence.

I'll let better action RPGs fill that void in my life. Ones that don't force shit I don't agree with. I'm down for protecting developers, I'm not down for being bullied with my hobby held hostage. I'll find my fun somewhere else thanks.

 

[Baresark]

Given that he seems utterly incapable of stepping outside his shoes for even the briefest period of time, I have to agree with you Baresark: It is a lost cause.

It's kind of funny that you would say that, safely nailed into your own single player shoes.

LoL, and the debate continues.... I mean, calling it not single player just because it requires an online connection is just semantics at this point. But, requiring a game to always connected when it is in fact no different than any other single player experience is just bollocks. Also, these shoes we are nailed into are very fun and safe shoes. If they were to do this exact same thing to Skyrim, it would be a single player game with an optional online component, that unfairly wanted all of it's customers to be signed in just to play a game by themselves.

 

[Vault101]

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.

I see what you did there

my BIG problem with this is the internet in the world just hasnt caught up yet...in 10 years or so mabye but right now no fucking way!

 

[Royas]

The people who describe this as "DRM" are starting to piss me off. It is NOT DRM. It is an online-only game. There is no separate single-player mode that requires some kind of online check-in server. You play ONLINE, you just play BY YOURSELF.

Personally, I think Blizzard has hugely underestimated the number of people who like to play Diablo alone or in small LAN groups, which makes this potentially a really dumb business decision. Diablo and Diablo 2 came out in a world with far less online competition, so, yeah, the online portion did get rather a lot of play even though it was pretty lousy from my experience. Now, they've decided to put Diablo 3 in competition with every MMO, including their own, while simultaneously eliminating most of its appeal to the single-player or lan-coop groups. In essence, they have marginalized the Diablo franchise, which is sure as hell not going to bring about some kind of gaming revolution.

But Blizzard has been proving how out-of-touch they are since they made the announcement.

We are calling it DRM because that's the only reason for a game like this to have an always on internet connection. It's not needed for single player gaming, so making it required for SP gaming isn't really indicated. What other reason could they possibly have? The reasons Blizzard have been giving thus far have been pretty clear bull**** with little bearing on actual reality.

Blizzard has shown some bad colors here. Lying, acting innocent when they are far from it, trying to hide DRM as a benefit... I'm deeply disappointed in what was once a favorite developer. They've changed a lot.

 

[EasySt17]

Awwww, isn't that cute, they think their opinion actually matters :3
When's the last time you released something important id? ... I tought so.

It was a little bit shorter than the last time Blizzard released anything important.

What about Starcraft 2?

Sucks... speaking even as a rabid Starcraft fan...

 

[Baresark]

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.

I see what you did there

my BIG problem with this is the internet in the world just hasnt caught up yet...in 10 years or so mabye but right now no fucking way!

There will be no "catching up". As time goes on, the world is facing a broadband shortage. More people than the current setup can support. And then there is the institution of "broadband as a right" which will only make that day come sooner. Cloud gaming is not a possibility in the foreseeable future, and as time goes on and more people become connected, we actually get further away, not closer to that goal.

 

[Royas]

I was more or less trying to convey that it is a very common practice. Even Steam doesn't guarantee you access to your games. If the Steam server went down, and you can't play your games, then you really can't complain, since you said that was fine whenever you use Steam. It's a non-issue, since every time you play a game (not just ass creed) and agree to those TOSs and such, you are saying "yeah, that's fine," hence is why I said it is a non-issue. It's a very, VERY common practice. You really should read a TOS or EULA for a game sometime... some of the stuff in it might surprise you.

Just because it's in an EULA or a TOS doesn't make it right or even legal. Just because you agree to it doesn't make that agreement enforceable.

I guarantee that even though (for example) Valve has part of the Steam agreements saying "we can turn this off and not give you access to your games anytime we want" they'd get their pants sued off if they actually tried turning the whole service off.

Yes, you don't expect an online only game to be up 24/7, if only because servers need maintaining. The issue here isn't that the servers won't always be up, it's that the servers being up shouldn't be an issue for single player gaming. It's a arbitrarily added single point of failure, which in engineer speak translates into "really crappy design". Online access is a point of failure for MMO's, because that's a central feature of an MMO. It's part of the intrinsic design of the game, without which the game will not function as expected. Online access as a point of failure for D3, however, isn't an intrinsic part of the game play. It's an added issue, only needed if you want to play multiplayer.

This isn't World of Warcraft, and I'm disgusted that they are shoving this DRM crap down our throats in the guise of added service.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Oh yes... I like being "forced" to do something. I'll be passing on this title until it goes down, if at all.

 

[Coldie]

OT: I'm not a huge fan of Always-on DRM. I've yet to hear a good reason why Bliz is forcing this on the players.

Simple: it worked for World of Warcraft and they liked it. Both the players and Blizzard liked it.

A secure and completely level field for all players, live statistical data flow, immediate hotfixes and 100% patch coverage. The only problem is keeping servers running without a subscription, so they had to add the real money AH.

Since it's not actually DRM they don't see what the big deal is. You can't pirate a game's server, so they don't need any DRM anyway (beside the Warden, of course).

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

OT: I'm not a huge fan of Always-on DRM. I've yet to hear a good reason why Bliz is forcing this on the players.

Simple: it worked for World of Warcraft and they liked it. Both the players and Blizzard liked it.

A secure and completely level field for all players, live statistical data flow, immediate hotfixes and 100% patch coverage. The only problem is keeping servers running without a subscription, so they had to add the real money AH.

Since it's not actually DRM they don't see what the big deal is. You can't pirate a game's server, so they don't need any DRM anyway (beside the Warden, of course).

WoW was a MMO. Are they trying to turn Diablo into a MMO?

Also, bliz doesn't have a... stellar track record when dealing with getting servers back online. At least from what I've seen.

 

[Aprilgold]

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.

Don't worry, you can route the 60$ you WOULD have spent on this for Saints Row the Third, where its all about player choice.

 

[AsurasFinest]

*snip*

Ah, Penny Arcade. Always missing the point (yet again someone forgets that the servers you have to connect to can go down) and always not funny. Why do people read these things?

Not only is that comic entirely on point (No one practical cares about the occasional server outage) but Penny Arcade is hilarious.

Oh yeah noone cares.
I can only hope that something akin to the PSN outage happens to the servers D3 runs on.
How do you like having your game online at all times after something like that can happen and has been shown to happen to companies of Blizzards size

 

[Coldie]

WoW was a MMO. Are they trying to turn Diablo into a MMO?

Also, bliz doesn't have a... stellar track record when dealing with getting servers back online. At least from what I've seen.

So it would seem, yes. Diablo 3 does everything a MMO would do, except the "Massive" bit. Combat, loot, random map generation is all handled by the server, while all the client has to do is sit there and look pretty.

As for the servers, hopefully it won't be as bad with maintenance and availability. I mean, the game does not have to worry about a huge persistent world with high player concurrency, as all it has is tons and tons of tiny 4 player instances. There's no need for a 4-5 server cluster for each "realm", so it should be easily scalable and completely homogenous. Restarts would be done transparently and a server failure would mean another server could pick up the slack, instead of having half the game world crash somewhere.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

WoW was a MMO. Are they trying to turn Diablo into a MMO?

Also, bliz doesn't have a... stellar track record when dealing with getting servers back online. At least from what I've seen.

So it would seem, yes. Diablo 3 does everything a MMO would do, except the "Massive" bit. Combat, loot, random map generation is all handled by the server, while all the client has to do is sit there and look pretty.

As for the servers, hopefully it won't be as bad with maintenance and availability. I mean, the game does not have to worry about a huge persistent world with high player concurrency, as all it has is tons and tons of tiny 4 player instances. There's no need for a 4-5 server cluster for each "realm", so it should be easily scalable and completely homogenous. Restarts would be done transparently and a server failure would mean another server could pick up the slack, instead of having half the game world crash somewhere.

My point is this: They had offline for the last game, didn't they? Why not allow it here?

Again, some people have dodgy internet connection, and this prevents them from enjoying the game in the same way.

EDIT: I'm more shocked people aren't more upset about he whole "no mods" thing. Isn't that the lifeblood of PC gaming?

 

[Grey_Focks]

If Blizzard can make people stop worrying and learn to love the bomb

I love you a little for that.

OT: Well, I personally don't care about the always online bit, as I tend to play all my games connected to the interwebs anyway, but it's still an inconvenience.

Now the removal of skill trees and stat points still pisses me off to no end though.

 

[Coldie]

My point is this: They had offline for the last game, didn't they? Why not allow it here?

Again, some people have dodgy internet connection, and this prevents them from enjoying the game in the same way.

The sales pitch is that your singleplayer character can now be freely and transparently used in multiplayer. I don't know the full reasoning, but I'd guess it's "because it is cheaper (in the long run)":

They have to use the server for multiplayer, to prevent D2's rampant duping and cheating. If they also do offline singleplayer, it would have to reimplement the server code in the client, exposing the server's logic. Also, since the client now has the server code, any serverside fixes also have to be rolled out for the clients, and client patches are expensive.

Bonus: Piracy is impossible. Pirates will have to either buy the game or create a server emulator. And those are terrible.

 

[loc978]

"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected,"
"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."

Translation: "I as an employee of a game publisher want to see people stop complaining about DRM. I want to require my paying customers to jump through hoops to prove they aren't pirating my games."

"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,"
"But it does take juggernauts like Diablo 3 to make change."

Translation: "I want to deliver official updates to my players and use them as a test bed for reliability issues. Also, I don't want my less experienced players to have to learn how to use their computer in order to patch my game.
If some of my customers like the game the way it is this update, and the new one changes that, I don't care. If my new update breaks one of their player-made mods, I don't care about that either.
I'm also glad that a current industry giant is testing this delivery system for me... my company might just make a mess of it."

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

Translation: "This is the future of gaming, if you don't like it, learn to or fuck off."

^He is right about that last part, though.^
Blizzard is hugely popular and they have a very skilled group of designers. Soon enough, people with monthly limited connections will be paying by the byte for DRM just to play single-player games. People with unreliable connections will have that unreliability transferred directly into their single-player games... and that's a damn shame.
Personally, I'll be watching from a distance, playing my older games and cursing people like Tim Willits. Diablo 3 doesn't interest me (D2 was a step backward in design philosophy as far as I'm concerned... D3 looks like another), but this controversy certainly does... even though I know I'm on the losing side.