Jimquisition: You Should Be Mad at Diablo III's Always Online DRM
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Jim is completely correct of course. But I don't think it will change Blizzard's position. Sadly enough, it may very well be the financially correct decision for the company, even if it DOES lose them some sales. Because sadly enough, making the servers do all the work (and contain almost all of the single player game) is potentially one of the only possible functional DRM mechanisms. Even though even this may not work 100%, because, of course, look at WoW...
But I will say this. Every time I see shit like this, I feel instantly thankful to CD Projekt. I also made sure to purchase the GOG version, precisely because it didn't have DRM.
But I will say this. Every time I see shit like this, I feel instantly thankful to CD Projekt. I also made sure to purchase the GOG version, precisely because it didn't have DRM.
Also removing the always online feature (or not adding it in the first place) from D3 would not have taken any great effort from Blizzard. Skyrim came out 7 months ago and is STILL getting bug fixes.Tommy Lynch said:
Not to say that I condone Zenimax giving us a half-broken game at launch, just that the two circumstances were significantly different
I've never understood this 'always online' system they're trying to implement in order to keep from being pirated.
Do they honestly think that their fanbase will be so vindictive to them that they'd pirate this game that they've been waiting several years for? If it's gonna get pirated, it's probably by people that aren't their audience that are simply curious about the whole thing. I'm pretty damn sure that the entire Blizzard community is mature enough to give Blizzard their pay.
This is just ridiculous. Blizzard's just being paranoid due to recent 'piracy issues' that, imo, have been pretty hugely exaggerated in the past few months.
Do they honestly think that their fanbase will be so vindictive to them that they'd pirate this game that they've been waiting several years for? If it's gonna get pirated, it's probably by people that aren't their audience that are simply curious about the whole thing. I'm pretty damn sure that the entire Blizzard community is mature enough to give Blizzard their pay.
This is just ridiculous. Blizzard's just being paranoid due to recent 'piracy issues' that, imo, have been pretty hugely exaggerated in the past few months.
One question: In ten years time, if Blizzard decide to take down the servers for Diablo 3 because they're costing them money and isn't making any, are we going to be able to play it? Is it possible that we will theoretically be able to play Diablo 1&2 for the next 100 years, but not 3, despite buying it fairly?
It says on the front of the box in really small print "Internet Connection Required".DanHibiki said:
It should say "You must be connected to the internet at all times to play this game". Internet connection required could mean anything. It could mean to download patches, it could mean that there is online activation and it could mean you need an always on connection. I'll bet they choose to keep it vague for dishonest reasons. Why else wouldn't they be more specific?
This guy is full of shit, and all the whiney self-entitled children are flat out wrong.
You are not paying for the right to play the game whenever you want. What you are paying for the ability to connect to the blizzard servers. That is it, and that is all it ever will be. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
This is not a situation where the rug was pulled out from under you. From the very beginning they laid out exactly how the game was going to be run. On their severs. They never gave you the impression it would be run locally. They never said their system would be infallible, handle 6 million connections, never have lag, etc. If you have a shit connection, that's your fault.
They designed the game the way they wanted too. You didn't have to purchase it, you don't get to complain about it. You don't like the way it is? Don't buy it. Simple, that is how capitalism works, that is how economics works, that is how quality control works.
That is all there is to it.
You are not paying for the right to play the game whenever you want. What you are paying for the ability to connect to the blizzard servers. That is it, and that is all it ever will be. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.
This is not a situation where the rug was pulled out from under you. From the very beginning they laid out exactly how the game was going to be run. On their severs. They never gave you the impression it would be run locally. They never said their system would be infallible, handle 6 million connections, never have lag, etc. If you have a shit connection, that's your fault.
They designed the game the way they wanted too. You didn't have to purchase it, you don't get to complain about it. You don't like the way it is? Don't buy it. Simple, that is how capitalism works, that is how economics works, that is how quality control works.
That is all there is to it.
The one thing I find truly despicable is that if any other company tried this they'd be raked over the coals and tarred and feathered. They would take a loss or barely break even, maybe if it was bad enough possibly (unlikely though it most likely would be) go under.
Not Blizzard, nope, they get to tell consumers what to do, when to do it, and they get paid to do so. They're going to make a mint off this it doesn't matter, and the implications for the industry will be detrimental. Blizzard might as well be snorting coke in front of a cop, while insulting your mom, and dropping a deuce in the brownie bowl for all the freaking impunity they tout.
Not Blizzard, nope, they get to tell consumers what to do, when to do it, and they get paid to do so. They're going to make a mint off this it doesn't matter, and the implications for the industry will be detrimental. Blizzard might as well be snorting coke in front of a cop, while insulting your mom, and dropping a deuce in the brownie bowl for all the freaking impunity they tout.
You are all heart, buddy.stiver said:
Blizzard does not need your protection. The fact that Blizzard explained from the start how the game would work doesn't change or excuse the fact that what they did pull the rug from under many a gamer's feet. Not everyone can afford a connection that can match and work with the one that Blizzard's servers are supporting.
I am not paying to play the game whenever I like ? Umm, funny, that's how the concept of video gaming has been for the past 30 years or so. The ability to connect to Blizz's servers is via Battle.net accounts. If you like your wallet getting bent over, laggish dungeons, RMAH that next to noone asked for to begin with and are happy that Blizzard just made their problems yours, that's fine. Stop considering yourself supperior or harassing people due to their consumer choices cause you are one of the many that decided to cave in and fork over money.
And while on the subject, the DRM wasn't for quality control. Oh no, its' main purpose is to protect the real money auction house. The game has already been copied and anyone with a bolstered connection can play. So yeah, if DRM was indeed to help shield against pirates, it pretty much worked like crap. The game isn't cracked yet but when it will be via a server emulator, all of THIS, will have been for nothing.
And you just happen to know how a person thinks after waiting 10 years for this, am I right ? You sound like a people person. Let's see if you will think the same next time Blizzard decides to perform maintenance during your playtime. Or the time after that. Or the time after that.
yeah, I've been flipping over some of the boxes I have at work and it really doesn't make any mention of 'permanent' Internet connection required, unlike say Ubisofts Splinter Cell of Assassins creed 2.Crono1973 said:
Even the Amazon page doesn't even mention that it needs to connection at all.
That's not shady as all fuck, is it?
The login problems were damn annoying. Blizzard could do what every new launch might be wise to do.
Servers are expensive. You don't want to spec for peak load or you'll be bleeding money, SIGNIFICANT money, at normal load. To handle peak load, rent server space. It's out there, LOADS of it, and you can afford it. The goodwill and astonishment a successful, non-bogged launch provides alone is worth it, not to mention the money you saved on not speccing for peak load.
But there's complaining and there's complaining. Blizz not providing the service we paid for is completely and totally complain-worthy, but the decision to make the game always-online removes a much larger amount of complexity from the system as a whole than most people realize. On the sadder yet unfortunately still relevant other side of the argument, it hits a lot of money-words for the people who put dollar signs on everything, and having those people nervous makes very bad work environments happen for the creative people.
Tl;dr: I don't mind always-on requirement, but I require that the service be available for me.
I'd like to bring up another point that MAY have been mentioned in the thread already: I fear for the future of this generation of games. I mean, I love blowing the dust off an old console and play one of my good old games that I used to love. Sometimes the nostalgia trip dies horribly, but often I have a grand time. THIS generation of games will in large part not be playable in 10-15 years, because servers the game hits up in order to play will no longer be around. SOME companies might free their games from these restrictions, but many will not. I recently played Duke Nukem 3D again, and it was a fun time to frag a friend for a while. I also remember playing Bad Company 2, I think it was... can you multiplay that at all anymore? If you still can... sooner or later you won't be able to. The game, with whatever good and bad it ever offered, is essentially dead forever. At the very least the upgrade systems and shit will no longer apply, as no server records your progress and gives you new toys. Will this generation's games, at least a fairly large part of them, be lost to the ages?
Servers are expensive. You don't want to spec for peak load or you'll be bleeding money, SIGNIFICANT money, at normal load. To handle peak load, rent server space. It's out there, LOADS of it, and you can afford it. The goodwill and astonishment a successful, non-bogged launch provides alone is worth it, not to mention the money you saved on not speccing for peak load.
But there's complaining and there's complaining. Blizz not providing the service we paid for is completely and totally complain-worthy, but the decision to make the game always-online removes a much larger amount of complexity from the system as a whole than most people realize. On the sadder yet unfortunately still relevant other side of the argument, it hits a lot of money-words for the people who put dollar signs on everything, and having those people nervous makes very bad work environments happen for the creative people.
Tl;dr: I don't mind always-on requirement, but I require that the service be available for me.
I'd like to bring up another point that MAY have been mentioned in the thread already: I fear for the future of this generation of games. I mean, I love blowing the dust off an old console and play one of my good old games that I used to love. Sometimes the nostalgia trip dies horribly, but often I have a grand time. THIS generation of games will in large part not be playable in 10-15 years, because servers the game hits up in order to play will no longer be around. SOME companies might free their games from these restrictions, but many will not. I recently played Duke Nukem 3D again, and it was a fun time to frag a friend for a while. I also remember playing Bad Company 2, I think it was... can you multiplay that at all anymore? If you still can... sooner or later you won't be able to. The game, with whatever good and bad it ever offered, is essentially dead forever. At the very least the upgrade systems and shit will no longer apply, as no server records your progress and gives you new toys. Will this generation's games, at least a fairly large part of them, be lost to the ages?
It is simply astounding how many people are ready to jump to blizzards defense. I guess the taste of guano has special meaning for these people.
"You knew what you were paying for, dont complain" ...yeah thats right, it says right there on D3's box art "This game will not be playble at launch and gameplay in general will be shit because our servers are powered by a handicapped hamster"
Seriously are these guys getting paid by Blizzard or are they just that deep in denial? You pay money, you get what you were descriped having in exchange for your money. Especially since PC gaming these days means you wont get refunds unless the game is completely broken. How is this difficult?
"You knew what you were paying for, dont complain" ...yeah thats right, it says right there on D3's box art "This game will not be playble at launch and gameplay in general will be shit because our servers are powered by a handicapped hamster"
Seriously are these guys getting paid by Blizzard or are they just that deep in denial? You pay money, you get what you were descriped having in exchange for your money. Especially since PC gaming these days means you wont get refunds unless the game is completely broken. How is this difficult?
what the hell does it matter how long its been in development for? If the game lacks polish i dont care if its a AAA publisher with 10 years to make or an indie studio with 2...Frostbite3789 said:
stop making excuses for sub standard games!