Jimquisition: You Should Be Mad at Diablo III's Always Online DRM

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Imperator_DK said:
Well, if you knew there were going to be always online DRM when you choose to put down $60 for the game, then I don't see how you can reasonably complain about the game featuring it.

You can however very much reasonably complain when the always on DRM isn't working. It's Blizard's responsibility to provide constant and consistent functionality, and when they fail to do so, criticism is in order.

Of course, nobody will really care about your opinion when you've already thrown down the money. If you want to efficiently curtail the practise of always online DRM, simply don't buy the games that come with it. Voting with your wallet is the only way to be heard, and not getting to play Diablo III a survivable sacrifice.
i still think they should have a right to complain about it, but having said that by buying it they did allow blizzard to get away with it

other than that i agree with everything in your post
 

PingoBlack

Searching for common sense ...
Aug 6, 2011
322
0
0
Meh, Jim failed this time.
Still, I get him, bandwagon of popularity is hard to miss.
Mind you, he has a point, and a good one. But sadly, this kind of rant should have happened ages ago.

Sadly, Diablo 3 is a MMO, in the sense its 100% server run. I never heard Jim complain about Guild Wars even though it was a very similar deal. But yeah ... You gotta do what's hot I guess.

Blizzard deserve some rubbing in. They made a design decision to run Diablo 3 like Guild Wars.
But I will be watching this space for next DRM incident. And I will be watching if we can finally talk about details and complexity and not only ramble on impulse about what's hot.

Why in Jim's name did you NOT TELL PEOPLE THIS IN ADVANCE! You freaking knew how Diablo 3 is designed Jim, I know you have the technical knowledge as well. Too bad you didn't make this episode before purchase time, eh? I sure wish you did, so people would not hallucinate about singleplayer game that is designed to run 100% remote after they made an uninformed purchase.
 

PingoBlack

Searching for common sense ...
Aug 6, 2011
322
0
0
dagens24 said:
... Did you watch the video or just see it? WoW is an MMORPG aka multiplayer only. Diablo 3 is not an MMORPG, in fact it's largely expected that a huge portion of people will be playing solo.
It is a 100% server run game. It might not be MMO but it uses exactly same technology. Even Jim is well aware you cannot remove authentication from server ran game, but he still decided to not sound nerdy, he went for pop.

I think people have to realize you cannot change a design decision. This episode should have aired months ago, so everyone would get educated before buying. Jim is right tho, you can complain now, but it is worth jack shit, just check the Jimquisition about Voting With Your Wallet.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
This is one of the major reasons I didn't - and don't plan to - buy D3. Simple as that.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Jim could have emphasized more how D3 is NOT an MMO.

No world PVP and party sizes of 4 players means that if only players could host games themselves, they wouldn't have to rely on Blizzard's overworkerd servers for their single or multiplayer.
That's simply how games like that used to work in the past. It was great.

But Blizzard doesn't do that, because they will make money on the virtual item auctions. That and DRM reasons.
 

dagens24

New member
Mar 20, 2004
879
0
0
PingoBlack said:
dagens24 said:
... Did you watch the video or just see it? WoW is an MMORPG aka multiplayer only. Diablo 3 is not an MMORPG, in fact it's largely expected that a huge portion of people will be playing solo.
It is a 100% server run game. It might not be MMO but it uses exactly same technology. Even Jim is well aware you cannot remove authentication from server ran game, but he still decided to not sound nerdy, he went for pop.

I think people have to realize you cannot change a design decision. This episode should have aired months ago, so everyone would get educated before buying. Jim is right tho, you can complain now, but it is worth jack shit, just check the Jimquisition about Voting With Your Wallet.
I realize that it's a design decision, that the online is so integrated into the 'single player' that there's nothing that can be done now; the problem is that it's a bad design decision from a consumers stand point. The arguement isn't that they should remove online only, it would be way too difficult a thing to do I would imagine; the arguement is that online only should never have been included from the get go, that the game should not have been designed around it. It's exploitative towards the consumer and transfers Blizzard's burdens onto the consumer.
 

sinn3r

New member
Apr 23, 2011
24
0
0
I do not agree with JS.

Just because the whole world wanted to play D3 in the first 5 minutes after the server being online, it does not mean that the service Blizzard offers is generally of poor quality.

The EU servers are already stable. Five days after release. For a game you can "waste" weeks of playtime in.
I do not think that the server will struggle again, now that the first onslaught is done.

And for all people who throw up a hissy fit for server generated and stored loot tables: Remeber how much fun D2 was? With all that boted and cheated junk on the ladders? And the skrippted looters who ninja'd all of the group's stuff?
Yeah now that was fun. I want that back.

For the real auction money house: Blizzard wants to get money from that, that's fine for me. And to do so, they ensure a fair and cheat-free economy. Win-win if you ask me.

And please dont mistake patient for fanboism.
 

RedmistSM

New member
Jan 30, 2010
141
0
0
Really funny intro and outro bits this week. I agree with the argument, but I'm not a PC player. Shouldn't whine on their behalf. We'll talk when it comes to the xbox.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Voltano said:
Crono1973 said:
The RMAH was created to put more money into Blizzards pocket and the DRM is forced on us to protect the RMAH.
Yes, and how should Blizzard make sure people who do use the RMAH (i.e. Real Money Auction House) has their information secure? You don't want malicious users to steal credit card information or identities stolen, otherwise you'll have a mob of angry customers at your door for poor security service and the government to investigate your company for the damages done. This is dangerously close to the situation that happened to Sony last year where all those customers got hacked when Sony's servers were opened at that time. Considering Diablo III is meant to be a global game launch, I don't blame Blizzard at all for including this kind of intrusive security feature.

But to create this kind of security they would have to stick to something like an MMORPG business plan where players have to play on a server, even ones that do prefer playing offline like introverted humans (myself included). Its hard to really say there is "DRM," for me, when the game has features more familiar with an MMORPG. But whether its DRM or not the damage is visible, as Jim Sterling's video points out.

It's not my job to solve Blizzards security problems nor should it be my burden to shoulder them. You are missing the point here, there was no need for a real money auction house in the first place.
 

PingoBlack

Searching for common sense ...
Aug 6, 2011
322
0
0
dagens24 said:
I realize that it's a design decision, that the online is so integrated into the 'single player' that there's nothing that can be done now; the problem is that it's a bad design decision from a consumers stand point. The arguement isn't that they should remove online only, it would be way too difficult a thing to do I would imagine; the arguement is that online only should never have been included from the get go, that the game should not have been designed around it. It's exploitative towards the consumer and transfers Blizzard's burdens onto the consumer.
But that's my point ... We knew about this design decision for a year!

I'm really ticked off how this was not a topic in meantime, especially since Jim is not one of gaming journo airheads. He made points about voting with wallet, but that can only be done up ahead.

Sadly, he missed his chance while that was still relevant.
 

sethisjimmy

New member
May 22, 2009
601
0
0
There are two issues at play here.


One is the DRM issue, should you be forced to be always online or not? This is mostly a matter of opinion, but I have to wonder if you're going to force always-online, why do you even have a single player option? If it's not a 100% multiplayer game, then it shouldn't be always-on DRM.

The second issue is the mass incompetence of Blizzard, this being almost irrefutable. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone can defend this always-online nonsense when mass server issues clearly prove it's a terrible concept.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
sethisjimmy said:
There are two issues at play here.


One is the DRM issue, should you be forced to be always online or not? This is mostly a matter of opinion, but I have to wonder if you're going to force always-online, why do you even have a single player option? If it's not a 100% multiplayer game, then it shouldn't be always-on DRM.

The second issue is the mass incompetence of Blizzard, this being almost irrefutable. It's incomprehensible to me how anyone can defend this always-online nonsense when mass server issues clearly prove it's a terrible concept.
It's interesting isn't it, that people blame consumers because Blizzard wasn't ready on launch day to support always online (that they forced into the game).

Sure, people shouldn't have bought it to protest the DRM but that's not the issue here, the issue is that they did buy it and it was unplayable. Not surprised though, people who bought Skyrim on the PS3 and found it unplayable on launch day got a similar attitude about how it was their own fault for not buying it on PC and how Bethesda can't be expected to make a game that large work well.
 

Gazisultima

New member
May 25, 2009
96
0
0
I don't agree with it one bit, but if people are used to playing WoW online all the time, they could just be putting up with what they're used to. They should really be protesting. If EA pulled this shit they would be attacked. Why do Blizzard get a free ride?
 

Doom972

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
I saw it coming and that's why I didn't buy it. Even though I love Diablo and like Diablo II.
I'm a supporter of digital distribution, but requiring me to be always online with absolutely no hiccups is just unacceptable.
I hope the servers will keep getting clogged up and make players abandon the game, forcing Blizzard to bend under the pressure and make Diablo III an offline single player mode, and show the industry that they can't force this DRM on us.
Whatever the merits of Always Online DRM and RMAH are, they are pointless if the game is unplayable.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Crono1973 said:
It's not my job to solve Blizzards security problems nor should it be my burden to shoulder them. You are missing the point here, there was no need for a real money auction house in the first place.
The giant dollar signs in Blizzards eyes disagree. They absolutely need a real money auction house, and they absolutely need to take a percentage of each transaction.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
I think the easy solution would be to allow players to have offline characters that cannot be used online and who can't place their items on the auction house.

But I don't know, that would be the clever thing to do and Blizzard seems to be getting thicker by the minute.
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
Naeras said:
Yes it is, and if you're arguing otherwise, you're delusional.
Skyrim is a single player game because it can have at most one player. D3 is a multiplayer game because it can have more than one player. This is what it means to be single player and multiplayer.
 

Grunt_Man11

New member
Mar 15, 2011
250
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Yes, thank you Jim. I hate people saying that entitlement is a problem in these cases. When you buy a game, you are entitled to play it.
Exactly! I am boggled by how many can't grasp this simple concept.

If I buy a cake, I'm entitled to eat it whenever I want!
If I buy a car, I'm entitled to drive it whenever I want!
If I buy shoes, I'm entitled to wear them whenever I want!
If I buy a chair, I'm entitled to sit in it whenever I want!
If I buy a house, I'm entitled to live in it!

Walter Byers said:
D3 is not a single player game either.
If Diablo 3 isn't a single-player game, then why does it have a single-player option?

Note: Playing a single-player game is NOT the same as doing things solo in a MMO. (Figured I'd cover this before someone tries to counter with it.)
In a single-player game I have 0% chance of randomly encountering another player. If I see someone, it will always be a NPC.
When I'm soloing in a MMO there are always other players around somewhere. They might not be near my current location, but they're in the game. There is always a chance I could run across another player.