id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3

[kingmob]

As a european with about a second of "downtime" every minute or so(which still kicks me from ubidrm infected games every time), I have this to say:

Fuck that bullshit.

luckally we all know, there wil ALLWAYS be an alternative. always on my bum. drm like this is still like shooting yourself in the foot, even for blizzard.

This, decadence and complacency is always the single thing to happen right before the fall...

 

[Michael Logan]

I dont see the problem, Ill just pirate it, no need to be online to play it then.

You are everything that is wrong with everything, everywhere, forever.

I apologize, what I ment with my post was, thats what Blizzard is missing is that people who download it dont have to worry about this online issue, personally I dont download games, I like to have physical copy of my games.

In retrospect I can see how my post was misunderstood though.

 

[unwesen]

I thought i owned these games?

Unfortunately, that's never been the case with retail software. You don't buy the software, you buy a license to use the software. And all licenses come with terms of use.

If the terms of use state that you have to be connected to the internet to use it, then that's fair game. If the terms don't state that but the software does it anyway, that's fair game. You licensed the software as it de facto exists after all, not the the software as you wish it was.

It's weirdly different from how you own other objects.

 

[Vrach]

But it's also hard to argue that Willits isn't right. If Blizzard can make people stop worrying and learn to love the bomb - and if any company can pull that off, it's Blizzard - then you can be sure there will be plenty of other studios and publishers following closely behind. Like it or lump it, this is the future.

Or, like with Assassin's Creed, it'll just be massively pirated, because, you know, most people don't actually give a toss about the one feature that requires an internet connection, the AH.

 

[Coldie]

Or, like with Assassin's Creed, it'll just be massively pirated, because, you know, most people don't actually give a toss about the one feature that requires an internet connection, the AH.

ALL features require an internet connection. Combat, loot, map generation, mob spawning, it's all done by the server. All client has to do is sit there and look pretty. You can't just pirate the game and play it, you have to write your own server from scratch, with blackjack and whatever.

 

[Vrach]

Or, like with Assassin's Creed, it'll just be massively pirated, because, you know, most people don't actually give a toss about the one feature that requires an internet connection, the AH.

ALL features require an internet connection. Combat, loot, map generation, mob spawning, it's all done by the server. All client has to do is sit there and look pretty. You can't just pirate the game and play it, you have to write your own server from scratch, with blackjack and whatever.

You sure about that? Cause I remember similar shit being said about Assassin's Creed 2. All it took was a server emulator program the size of an ordinary text file with the right values in it, to run the game flawlessly.

 

[Coldie]

You sure about that? Cause I remember similar shit being said about Assassin's Creed 2. All it took was a server emulator program the size of an ordinary text file with the right values in it, to run the game flawlessly.

Pretty sure. [http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=27822632451&sid=3000&pageNo=12#238]
Assassins's Creed 2 runs on your machine and only asks the server for certain, fixed flags, at certain, fixed times. Diablo 3 runs a lot of things on the server, like a MMO game, and it takes considerably more effort to emulate what amounts to a large chunk of the game. Someday someone might do it, but it'll take some time before it's playable. AC2 took 2-4 weeks, I believe? That was a big win, according to UbiSoft.

 

[Paularius]

My self and 3 other friends have already dicided to give D3 a miss. Not just becouse of this always on internet as there are other things about the game we dont like but this is one of the reasons.

And i'd hate to be the one to break it to them and i hope it dosnt get me into trouble here, but do they not realise that a few days after launch the game will be pirated so you can play offline :S

Not that im a pirate so please dont whack me with the ban/warning hammer >.< I'm just being realistic in whats likely going to happen.

 

[Griffolion]

I am indifferent to this. Need always on DRM? Okay by me. Don't need it? Okay by me. I'm just into playing the game.

Flame shield, engage!

 

[Vrach]

You sure about that? Cause I remember similar shit being said about Assassin's Creed 2. All it took was a server emulator program the size of an ordinary text file with the right values in it, to run the game flawlessly.

Pretty sure. [http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=27822632451&sid=3000&pageNo=12#238]
Assassins's Creed 2 runs on your machine and only asks the server for certain, fixed flags, at certain, fixed times. Diablo 3 runs a lot of things on the server, like a MMO game, and it takes considerably more effort to emulate what amounts to a large chunk of the game. Someday someone might do it, but it'll take some time before it's playable. AC2 took 2-4 weeks, I believe? That was a big win, according to UbiSoft.

AC2 had server emulators out by day 2 or 3, though they required a touch of assembly, such as tampering with the host file, something which might be over the head of certain individuals (but doubtfully most pirates who tend to be computer savvy, especially as most torrent sites, PirateBay included, have a comment section that can be helpful at times for those who are not). A scene release took 2 weeks or so indeed, but it was the first time a DRM of that sort was used and the followup games that used a similar system were cracked on day 1.

Fair enough on the Diablo 3 though, but it sounds like it's on the fence, being neither fully client side nor as server side as something like WoW is. We'll see after it's released I suppose, but I very much doubt it's gonna take too long for the game to be pirated. After all, even WoW has private servers, any clue on how long those took to set up?

 

[remmus]

bunch of BS, just pure BS, anyone defending this is a egocentric who just sits back and cares that his/her own place has a nice internet connection. No one else could (or should) support this.


End of Line.

 

[Vrach]

You sure about that? Cause I remember similar shit being said about Assassin's Creed 2. All it took was a server emulator program the size of an ordinary text file with the right values in it, to run the game flawlessly.

Pretty sure. [http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=27822632451&sid=3000&pageNo=12#238]
Assassins's Creed 2 runs on your machine and only asks the server for certain, fixed flags, at certain, fixed times. Diablo 3 runs a lot of things on the server, like a MMO game, and it takes considerably more effort to emulate what amounts to a large chunk of the game. Someday someone might do it, but it'll take some time before it's playable. AC2 took 2-4 weeks, I believe? That was a big win, according to UbiSoft.

Also, might want to check out the thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.306239-CHILL-GUYS-Diablo-3-will-have-offline-mode-Nope-Old-information-my-bad

So yeah, so much for everything being server side

 

[Rouzeki]

....

do I even have to say anything further. I already set my points down in the Diablo III always-on DRM thread for Diablo III. Now ID is chiming in with the next step.

And you know what? I'm not surprised, and I don't care anymore. Blizzard KNOWS they have the base to sell this like hotcakes. once the sales records kick back, other groups are going to do the same thing. and it DOESN'T MATTER what we do, even if all the people who do boycott actually do so.

Most people, including gamer's are not well informed (i'm probably not either). I question if most understand how time affects things, or more apt, if they CARE one bit.

people are welcoming this and paying into what they demand. It doesn't matter if a bigger majority of even the US can't get a connection worth anything, because most will ignore that face for it only affecting themselves. This only stabs deeper because Blizzard's doing this with a series known for being able to handle offline and online designs 10. YEARS. AGO., and they spin "experience" excuses. yeah, here's the experience excuse:

They want to tell YOU how to handle the experience. Like all these FPSes that as Yahtzee put, seem to act like your not there. They want everyone playing in the open, despite the fact the game didn't need it, and even IF it loses them money on people who STILL have issues with connections (1 hour from where I'm posting, you can't get anything Broadband. think about that.)

Well, you know what, straw man comic strips, flames and all to the contrary, I stuck to my guns about SCII, And ill do the same for Diablo III.

Thanks blizzard. After all my years of loyalty to your name, you'll be the first nail in the coffin for my gaming future, and many others. cheers, and I hope its worth it.

 

[Coldie]

Fair enough on the Diablo 3 though, but it sounds like it's on the fence, being neither fully client side nor as server side as something like WoW is. We'll see after it's released I suppose, but I very much doubt it's gonna take too long for the game to be pirated. After all, even WoW has private servers, any clue on how long those took to set up?

I've no idea how long it took for the first emulators to appear, but a quick google search shows that they are somewhat up-to-date now. With "features" like 'Working SPELLS and TALENTS' or 'INSTANT 85'.

There's a thing to keep in mind, though: an emulator is not a very accurate recreation of the original. They will have whatever items, creatures, spells the creator thinks are or should be in the game and they will work like he thinks they work. Add the time required to decode, analyze, and recreate the client-server communication protocols, replicate the basic game mechanics like "loot"... It'll be done eventually, but not day one.

Also, might want to check out the thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.306239-CHILL-GUYS-Diablo-3-will-have-offline-mode-Nope-Old-information-my-bad

So yeah, so much for everything being server side

That was posted nearly a YEAR ago, long before the announcement about the client-server online-only architecture.

 

[SixWingedAsura]

FORCING US?

I swear to god, I'm going to boycott iD games. He specifically said he wants to force this on gamers. Well you know what Tim Willitis? F**k you. F**k you up the arse. You disgusting sack of sh*t. No company should have the right to FORCE their gamers to accept something. Sadly though, he's right on one front. It's going to happen. Blizzard has enough rabid fanboys who can't see the forest for the trees and enough WoW addicted sad-sacks that their next game could force players to get anally raped everytime they want to play single player and I'm sure people would jump to their defense and proclaim it as the future.

God, gaming is looking bleaker and bleaker everyday. Thank god Nintendo is slow as a centuries old turtle to jump onto the online bandwagon.

The day I have to connect to the internet to play Zelda is the day I give up being a gamer.

 

[Vrach]

Fair enough on the Diablo 3 though, but it sounds like it's on the fence, being neither fully client side nor as server side as something like WoW is. We'll see after it's released I suppose, but I very much doubt it's gonna take too long for the game to be pirated. After all, even WoW has private servers, any clue on how long those took to set up?

I've no idea how long it took for the first emulators to appear, but a quick google search shows that they are somewhat up-to-date now. With "features" like 'Working SPELLS and TALENTS' or 'INSTANT 85'.

There's a thing to keep in mind, though: an emulator is not a very accurate recreation of the original. They will have whatever items, creatures, spells the creator thinks are or should be in the game and they will work like he thinks they work. Add the time required to decode, analyze, and recreate the client-server communication protocols, replicate the basic game mechanics like "loot"... It'll be done eventually, but not day one.

Also, might want to check out the thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.306239-CHILL-GUYS-Diablo-3-will-have-offline-mode-Nope-Old-information-my-bad

So yeah, so much for everything being server side

That was posted nearly a YEAR ago, long before the announcement about the client-server online-only architecture.

Ah oki, the thread was new so I figured it was up to date info. Should've looked into it further

Anyway, yeah, emulators are not the accurate recreation of the original, but it depends on how much stuff exactly is done by the server (and thus, the emulator). From what I've heard from my mate, WoW private servers work fine, it's just that the servers are much more prone to failing (no surprise, Blizzard would have more means to keep such things stable) and obviously don't get the patches (most people play them for exactly that reason though, to enjoy Vanilla servers and what have you).

But this is not WoW, you're not running around with thousands of people on a server etc. It's a singleplayer game with some components that are based on online features and as such, replicating the experience will be much easier and more doable I reckon. But as I said, we'll see when the game launches.

I'm still against games accepting the always-on DRM features for various reasons. For one, I might be wanting to download something. Say Star Wars: The Old Republic comes out and I'm digitally downloading it. If it's taking up all my bandwidth, and it most likely will, the always on DRM feature is gonna be cutting up (I've seen it happen with Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood), which can, depending on the DRM implementation, fuck up your whole game experience in a situation where you really don't need any online features. So I can't play my singleplayer game while waiting for something to download.

I might also be somewhere with a gaming laptop wanting to kill my time and there's no internet connection. Or hell, even in this day and age, I might be one of those people who don't have an internet connection, or whose internet connection is highly unstable and prone to failure. Guess what, not everyone lives in an urban area. Or heck, the internet just might be out for a few hours/days or even a week or two because of some work getting done (personally been in this situation once, it happens with cable internet providers) and you'll be cut off from playing your singleplayer game because you can't beep and say "hey, I'm online" to some server. Most people who've gone through the moving process know how irritatingly slow ISPs can be about getting you an internet connection. While waiting, you're fucked if a game has DRM.

DRM is like a bank giving you 1500 forms to fill out before you can raise a penny off your account, while putting it's vault in the middle of fucking nowhere with no guards around and free reign for anyone to come and break it open. Guess what, those guys breaking your safe open aren't filling out the fucking forms, that's how detached your protection system is, all it does is annoy the legitimate customers.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Thank you Tom Willits for showing us your contempt for any gamer who doesn't like things the way you do. Well that's the final nail in not buying Diablo 3 unless it is 'fixed' so that I can play offline.

 

[Alexlion]

Can games companys stop trying to make me get along with people by being connected etc, i hate people. There like the annoying people at partys who try to make you dance, i dont enjoy dancing thats why im not dancing doesn't take a genius to work that out.

 

[suitepee7]

Also, unrelated, how do you pronounce id? Each letter individually like you'd show an officer your I.D., or id like id, ego, superego?

i pronounce the way of identification, not the psychological one =p

and this doesn't look good. it's a bad idea, because i want to be able to play a game i paid for how i like, including offline. there are many circumstances where you might just not have internet for one reason or another, and DRM refusing to allow me to play because of that is a bit of a dick move...

 

[Coldie]

I might also be somewhere with a gaming laptop wanting to kill my time and there's no internet connection. Or hell, even in this day and age, I might be one of those people who don't have an internet connection, or whose internet connection is highly unstable and prone to failure. Guess what, not everyone lives in an urban area. Or heck, the internet just might be out for a few hours/days or even a week or two because of some work getting done (personally been in this situation once, it happens with cable internet providers) and you'll be cut off from playing your singleplayer game because you can't beep and say "hey, I'm online" to some server. Most people who've gone through the moving process know how irritatingly slow ISPs can be about getting you an internet connection. While waiting, you're fucked if a game has DRM.

True that. My internet is prone to occasionally dying or being sluggish, too. But, alas, there's no choice in the matter: if you want to play their game, you play by their rules. I've got internet at home a few years ago for the sole reason of playing World of Warcraft. Maybe someone will get it for the sole reason of playing Diablo 3.

It sucks, but I understand their reasons for doing what they are doing. It's the 21st century. Time to move on and rise up - against crappy internet service providers and archaic download limits, not the developers.