id Software Praises "Always On" in Diablo 3

[Cropsy91]

The crack IS the game for these guys. The harder the job the more fun they have breaking it, and the more money and respect goes to the winner.

So true. Anybody who has any knowledge of pirates and cracking rings knows that they love a good challenge, it gives them an opportunity to boost their ego and further their reputation as a pirate/cracking group. It blows my mind that so many big developers don't have the insight to realize this, and instead continue to bone their legitimate customers through restrictive and impractical DRM, whilst pirates enjoy the fun of cracking the game AND playing it unrestricted.

 

[saruman31]

Edit: I was wondering, if you purchased a game at Bestbuy or somewhere, do you have the legal right to modify it? An anti-DRM/anti-always-on patch or crack should be easy enough to find. I wrote a paper for class about piracy and you can almost always find these cracks online the day the game comes out. Assuming you've bought the game legally I don't see why a person couldn't apply these workarounds to their legit copies.

In regards to this question, there is a website setup specifically to deliver you cracks upon agreeing you legally own a copy and is intended for this very purpose & does not promote piracy in any way. Though escapist would likely not approve of linking it simply by how muddy the waters are regarding piracy.

Also, it is not technically illegal to crack the game you already own for back up purposes or for your own convenience (such as no-cd cracks). I'm no lawyer, however, but that's my knowledge of it. Though some games do make you agree not to modify the game in any way, I suppose it'd potentially pass in court, though I doubt you'd ever see anyone get taken that far over cracking a game they purchased just so they'd have access to it offline.. Though with times going the way they are, who knows?

Still the problem stims from the fact that hard working citizens - just like anyone else - have to crack a game THEY just paid $60 for (what you think the crackers got it for free? Someone has to buy it first, guess who that is going to be? Thankfully they find some fun out of it sure.) and while some would claim the person (when in actually it's a *team* of people) get so much praise for it and feel like kings and flex they're digital muscles for beating the games security - that too is false.. the slightest problem with the game even if it's not caused by the crack but rather the person's own system puts heat on the team and after hours upon hours of work they don't get anything in return but a few thanks and a pat on the back which thankfully goes back to 'It's good they have fun doing it' as well a good chunk of the teams believe in what they do, started cracking only because of DRM and Always On.

UrKnightErrant mentions something about them making money by selling the disks in china but .. honestly the teams (that I know of anyway) are based in the US & make no money short of donations at most - as well as promoting "If you like the game, support the industry - Go out and BUY /insert name here/" on every description page.

- Point being, It's not all theft and evil. Some outright steal unfortunately, but more try it - and if they enjoy it they buy it, some (alotttt) just don't want the crappy features that are consistently getting rammed down our throats by force if want to enjoy a good game such as DRM & Always on, we buy it.. and then remove said features.

People take the cracked game off of the internet and then go to sell it on the streets. The groups that crack it have no business in this. That`s real piracy.

 

[Krantos]

Word that jumps out at me here is "force."

Why, why, why is it so hard for both gamers and developers to remember that gamers are consumers. These companies should be doing everything they can to woo us over, not force obnoxious DRM down our throats knowing they'll still make a profit.

Really and honestly fellow gamers, it's time to start sending a message to the industry. They would be nothing without us. It's time for them to start playing by our rules, not theirs. I know it will suck to not be able to play D3, but enough is enough. There are enough other games coming out that we can safely forget about D3 and show Blizzard where they can stick their "always on."

 

[Niccolo]

My favourite DRM ever was the one in Arkham Asylum. It didn't do anything at all to those who bought it legally, instead screwing with the pirates.

That shows a group that actually gives a damn about their fans.

I was wondering, if you purchased a game at Bestbuy or somewhere, do you have the legal right to modify it? An anti-DRM/anti-always-on patch or crack should be easy enough to find. I wrote a paper for class about piracy and you can almost always find these cracks online the day the game comes out. Assuming you've bought the game legally I don't see why a person couldn't apply these workarounds to their legit copies.

I don't personally have a problem with it, provided you DID buy it legally and have proof. I'm sure the bigwigs will hate that, but let's be honest; you've given them their 60 bucks. They have their cocaine money, you have your game - who gives a damn, as long as you don't give your game to everyone?

Hopefully somebody at Blizzard will realise that this is a bad idea before it's too late.

 

[Vhite]

Internet connection is becoming something like having a phone, everyone has it and if you dont than fuck you, we are moving to future. It may be little too soon for this but I dont mind it because my connection is stable and Blizzard is doing this since first Starcraft. Sure, you wasn't forced to play multipayer but if you bought the game it was probably mainly because of it. While their games do have very good singleplayer, they won't last very long. Im sure there are people out there who did buy their games and never even touched multiplayer but I think there is much more people who bought them just for multiplayer, let alone for both.

 

[w00tage]

Another lost customer here that will never be counted by EA. If having the internet connection did something useful for me in non-online play, I could see it. Requiring me to have it for EA's purposes is over the line.

No monehz for you EA.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Has Blizzard confirmed that this decision was DRM-related? I thought it wasn't.

Oh they CLAIMED it wasn't DRM-related (actually, they've contradicted themselves in two interviews now, but they're insisting that DRM isn't the emphasis).
But it's impossible to argue against this choice as being anything other than DRM when you look at the facts.
In short: Blizzard is lying; it's already been proven.

Yes, we are cattle. Not individually of course. But en-masse we are.

So true.

Too many gamers lack any sort real dedication to their alleged principles; they claim they won't buy a game out of spite/boycott, and then cave to go buy it anyway.

What happens: They want a game, but they don't like how it's presented. Then their friends go out and buy it or they keep hearing the post-release hype for the game, and eventually these factors push the game firmly back into "must-have" territory and they buy it.

Corrupt business makes money, and they try again with tighter restrictions.
Repeat.

The giants in the gaming industry want to ramrod these changes (from Product to Service) in as quickly as possible, so that they can establish schemes that let them trick people into giving up more of their money for nothing.
They already succeeded once with DLC. Why not go for the whole enchilada?

And if people don't want these changes, apparently, they will be FORCED to "enjoy" them.
It's psychological warfare. If you tell someone a blatant lie for years, they just might start believing in it for the sake of "convenience".

 

[Rouzeki]

I'm going to try to make this my last piece on this. Sorry if it seems like I'm picking you personally out for it, Vhite, but your post is the perfect corpse to dissect to explain my position.

Internet connection is becoming something like having a phone, everyone has it and if you dont than fuck you, we are moving to future.

The problem IS that most connections are not nearly as good as you would think them to be, instability and lack of speed is still abound. DIAL UP is like having a phone. ANYONE who looks hard enough can find the maps of this that I've already posted in the original thread. and that's the concern BEFORE blizzard brings maintenance on the servers, or has another issue that prevents you from playing.

whats so galling about this is that BLIZZARD is taking its most single playable franchise and doing this to it. COME. ON. why is it an apparent problem now to enjoy a game even when the cable goes out or in transit somewhere, or (apparently in gremlin land) you don't HAVE INTERNET? Why did they go about doing this? there games have been generally considered amazing across the board, and then they'll discourage people outright who aren't in OUR lucky positions? don't they WANT as much money as possible? if they didn't sugar code games with DRM, people could just say "yeah, this games awesome, go buy it! Blizzard did no wrong!" but an hour and a half from here, I know there's a few gamers thinking "well crap. I was waiting for that all my life, but since I can't move, and the signals suck here, im stuck."

It may be little too soon for this

Yes, seems so to me. thing about it is ID has proven that once this muscling occurs by blizzard, if the numbers kickback well, as many companies will follow suit on this as fast as they possibly can. thereby ruining future release years for at least several thousand PC gamers, and I know I'm low-aiming on that number. I might sound alarmist about it, but the way this man from ID is talking, it sounds as much.

Someones gotta put the boot to the neck on this, before it gets out of hand.

but I dont mind it because my connection is stable and Blizzard is doing this since first Starcraft. Sure, you wasn't forced to play multipayer but if you bought the game it was probably mainly because of it. While their games do have very good singleplayer, they won't last very long. Im sure there are people out there who did buy their games and never even touched multiplayer but I think there is much more people who bought them just for multiplayer, let alone for both.

and here we are, what got me to post. this first sentence here is exactly why it will work, no questions asked. sometimes we have to move on principle, but people aren't so big on that anymore.

They were doing multiplayer since Warcraft I, but the important thing here is it was always an OPTION. if you felt like just punching in the CPU or playing the campaign (again. and again, and again) you had the option to do that wherever you could take a computer, and on your own terms. back then they also had LAN, so you had 3 choices- alone offline, friends offline, or with friends online.

the multiplayer of games like starcraft created the vast community base for SCII outside of the new folks, yes, but the single player was still an option. I spent hours playing the CPU in Starcraft or Diablo when I was young, because it was just what I wanted to do. then id lan with family.

LAN going away hurt, but was workable. now they are trying to take away the right to enjoy an experience that is the LEAST hinged on multiplayer, by dragging single player under the same requirements as multiplayer? all for the sake of a "better experience"?

No. you can have your "better experience", but im not going to be a part of it. Not when it means I can't play even single player when I want. not when it means honest gamers will get shut out of the deal. and why are they doing it? is there a single valid reason for it?

A "better experience" isn't valid. we as gamers define our own experience of the game as we play it. I like to play alone, but some don't. yes, ill be able to play alone online, but why should i have to? online is for multiplayer and multiplayer functions. Offline should be so I can play the game alone!

For DRM? well, painting a target the size of Kalimdor on your game because of its DRM measures will do you nothing but lose customers, or force people to pirate for a game to have a feature its prequel had 10 YEARS AGO, while those who wanted to crack or pirate it do so and giggle.

Just to be jerks? Seems the most valid reason. the people with broadband are the fortunate ones, and ID's floating behind blizzard now saying "YESSSS, we'll make OUR games like this as well" and who then? this kind of design makes sense for MMO's and to an extreme extent for RTS and shooter games (due to how alive multiplayer there can be), but why is this getting into the hack and slash games? are we gonna have the AC problem all over again, this time sloped into it from this?

Its fast become clear to me that single player no longer means anything to most of the industry. I can't be the only person who likes a crafted story and gameplay, but if blizzards model with this proves successful, how many more games, great on gameplay and story, are going to be kneecapped to fit someones bottom line for long term revenue (such as with the RCAH cuts, or multiplayer billboard ads)?

I can see THAT now. "Blizzard made so much money off of RCAH cuts, we HAVE TO get this into our game!" "but what about our single player?" "make it always-online too, so those players can get things off it as well! *money showers*"

IF I start seeing RPG's pop up as always online multiplayer affairs stemming from blizzard turning hack and slash games into the model (not a hard jump, I figure), I'm pretty much done.

*exhale* that's been stored up in me for awhile. once again, sorry if I overheated there.

EDIT: and another thing! its not that they just had multiplayer before, but they SEPERATED it out between offline characters, offline characters being taken online (open Bnet) and ONLY online characters (closed Bnet) in Diablo II. If they are so concerned about maintaining balance, then they could have employed the same system, just making it closed Bnet and offline single player. this would let people who wanted to play alone online look in the AHs, give them the bottom line they asked for, AND let anyone who wanted offline play it offline like they wanted, and not muddle the AHs. why is this so impossible?

 

[Vhite]

God of Snip

Wow, I feel honored with such a huge wall of text. Too bad it is too late now/here and I could read it only briefly. You will get proper response from me tomorrow.

 

[Atmos Duality]

IF I start seeing RPG's pop up as always online multiplayer affairs stemming from blizzard turning hack and slash games into the model (not a hard jump, I figure), I'm pretty much done.

Why would they stop at RPGs?

Once the other major publishers jump onto the "Games=Service" bandwagon (following EA's Origin, Blizzard's Bnet 2, and whatever Ubisoft called their version of digital hemorrhoids) you can expect ALL of their titles to include it as a new industry Standard.

Behold the introduction of law-enforceable Unilateral Contracts into video gaming. What's the benefit, the added compensation for the consumer? There isn't any.

 

[Rouzeki]

Exactly Atmos. and thats why people need to make sure this has to stop. some games are better because of online, but we shouldn't lose the leisure of a single player experience whenever we feel like it to that.

but then, how long is the average games single player now? aren't linear games only about 20 hours at BEST?

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I want to punch this man in the face. Yes, having an online community of always connected gamers which can interact with the developers is a great idea. However, forcing people to always be connected is a sack of BALLS. What are you afraid of here? If everyone should always be able to connect to the internet in your little imaginary world, then why would people NOT want to connect to your severs, and what detriment would that be to YOU!? Anyone who doesn't want to really isn't going to use your bloody online features anyway, because they DON'T WANT TO!!! It's just an inconvenience to people without a stable internet connection, you know, MORE THAN HALF THE BLOODY POPULATION OF THE WORLD!!!

 

[SmugFrog]

So I want the customers to be punched in the gut when playing Diablo 3. ANd it's really a good idea because that means pirates are less likely to pirate the game.

Lol!

No, ID and Blizzard, myself and other members of the military are not going to LEARN TO LOVE IT, when we're away from home and trying to relax and enjoy a video game on our laptop. We are usually unable to get internet for months at a time on our personal computers. Let me tell you, there's nothing to help time fly like a good game. All you have done is told us we have to be pirates if we want to play your game - what kind of deal is that?

It's like they suddenly forget there are people in the world that don't have internet access 24/7. Wish it as much as you want, we just don't live in that day and age yet.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

God...


... DAMNIT...

The level of stupid. It is simply causing me physical pain.

 

[The_Vigilant]

You know what I think of here? Titan quest. Great game, launched to a deafening silence. ILE went out of business soon after.

So what if it had been online-only? What if it had used this system?

Simple: I would never have been able to play it again. I would have owned a very pretty $40 coaster, all because some wig in a suit decided his shareholders were more important than his customers. Now, certainly each company will say your game's activation is safe in their hands because, after all, they're blizzard! They're ea! They're huge, and they deserve your trust... Right?
To which I say, remember Midway Games? Black isle studios? There is no studio or publisher too big or too good to fail, gentlemen, and we would be wise not to trust any studio to safeguard something we own.

Not sure if somebody made this response a long time ago or not, but I should HOPE that if a developer was planning on shutting its system down, it would be good enough to release a patch deactivating the "always-on" component of the game's software. That might sound stupid (I'm not sure how it's coded) but I like to think developers have SOME contingency plan for this possibility to pacify customers.

 

[The_Vigilant]

I too am a laptop-vacation-gamer, but a part of me still sees some of the good in this beyond the DRM component. And don't get me wrong, I do think that's the biggest reason for it.

But another part of me admits that the multiplayer experience in almost every game is superior to its single player experience, even if the only difference is scoreboards and friend login notifications. However, a lot of times I'm too lazy to connect. If I buy a game for its single player experience, I never even bother to try its multiplayer. I can see this requirement making it a lot easier for me to get involved with the game's community and really see its potential. I think game developers see this. I think they know what's good for us even when we don't see it yet and not everyone is equipped for it. If DRM were the ONLY reason for this and it was PURELY an inconvenience, Blizzard wouldn't do it. Blizzard knows there is a serious silver lining in this requirement that will add to most users' enjoyment of the game, and in the end, that bonus play value to many will outweigh the inconvenience of the few. It may even improve their bottom line...

I definitely agree with the author that, one way or another, this is the future.

 

[Siege_TF]

It is, however, a future we can fight, and postpone indefinately simply by exercising our power as consumers and not buying games like DRMblo III.

 

[UnusualStranger]

You know what I did the other day? I installed and played Diablo 2. On my laptop. Without any issue whatsoever. I didn't need to connect to any server, I didn't NEED to have updates to play, didn't need to make a new account in order to play it, I didn't find myself being bombarded that I needed to worry about my Single Player Character wasn't going to be able to play online.

Absolutely nothing happened. Know the amazing part?

This game is damn old, doesn't play nice on today's systems, and I still put in the extra mess and time to get it working because its an awesome game that does not demand I jump through 3 hoops of creating accounts, Connect to service Badnet.2, and making sure I get a good connection to servers.

Simply put, there is a pair of reasons this "Always On" won't work. First of all, we will likely never see EVERYONE have a STEADY internet connection. Yeah, I can get internet out in the middle of the plains, but it will be the slowest type of package, and it will drop me randomly. Second, and perhaps much more importantly, is that with all this "With the internet, we can always keep track of our games and make sure people are not stealing it." Is that there are sites dedicated to the pirating, exploiting, hacking, or whatever you want to call it of your game. By being annoying, adding in extra layers of where a problem can go wrong, you are going to start pissing a lot more people off who will just go "To hell with this, its a pain!"

To put it simply
1. Need steady internet.
2. Need constantly working router.
3. Always need servers to be on.
4. Likely need to worry about Battle.net 2.o account logging issues.

On a more final note....Do these companies ever wonder why Console games are so popular these days? Why it seems more people are always excited about a lot more console games than PC games?

Part of it may be that I don't ALWAYS have to be online, thus trusting my ISP, Your servers, and ANOTHER account I need to make with you to touch this game, I never have to worry about upgrading the insides of my console to make sure they can handle your game, and I NEVER EVER AM FORCED TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY MY GAMES. I have a 360, and I can disconnect it's wireless thing right now, and ALL my games will continue to function. ALL of them.

 

[Elamdri]

If this is the future, Onlive's not looking bad.

Ok, forgive me, but wtf? You're upset about a game that charges you once to play and then requires a constant internet connection. Given that, you are lauding a company that charges you once to buy a game then requires a constant internet connection? I don't get it.

The difference is 60 bucks to "own" the game vs 10 bucks a month.

The 10 dollar a month plan is only for specific games, a lot of which are crap. If you want to actually own the game on the service so you can play it anytime you want, you have to pay full market price (And only if it's actually available for purchase).

Must only be certain games, because I pre-ordered Human Revolution and the agreement I signed said 10 bucks. What games do you have to pay full price for? I'd like to know, since I was putting off buying certain games so I could use Onlive instead, but if I'm paying full price anyway I may as well get them.

The way OnLive works, you purchase Licenses for games on their service called PlayPasses. They have 3 types, 3-day, 5-day and Full. The first two are essentially rentals, if you don't want to buy the game outright. The Full pass is essentially the same as purchasing a game. You pay full price and you have unlimited access to it for the lifetime of the game on OnLive (They currently say on their site they'll keep all games up a minimum of 3 years).

You also have the option of the $10 subscription. Under that plan, they have a number of titles that you can play for an unlimited amount of time, but it is on a periodic rotation, so eventually games will be taken out and replaced with different games.