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

[McMullen]

I'm mostly in agreement.

However, some of the "You're Allowed to Be Entitled" argument loses its merit when the players KNEW that being connected - even for single player - was a requirement WELL in advance of the game's release.

A bigger message would have been sent if the people who are complaining now hadn't bought the game in the first place. That's really the root of the "Just eat the shit" argument. They paid for it knowingly. They made their bed, so they have to lie in it.

That's not the issue. Always-on DRM wouldn't have been so bad if Blizzard had kept up their end of the bargain and had the servers to deal with everyone being online. If you buy a game, you should be able to play it, period. If a company doesn't allow you to play the game you bought, and you're trying to play it in the way that the company intended you to, then they are ripping you off.

Now, in a fair world, this would be treated as the inverse of piracy, because you've been sold a product that doesn't do anything. They've taken your money and aren't giving anything in return. If piracy is theft, then so is this. In a fair world, we could level the same exorbitant fines and damages at them as they level at pirates: something like $10,000 per locked out user per day. Unrealistic? Yes, but so are the penalties for piracy.

I want to make it clear that I do not pirate and do not encourage it. I just don't like the double standard on display here where the public can screw the corporation and lose everything, while the corporation can screw the public and get nothing more than harsh words on forums. The playing field is really far from being level here.

If you're going to say that no company could survive those kinds of penalties, that's the point. Those fines are so high because they're a deterrent. All a company need do to not incur those fines is to not screw over its customers like this. It's not hard.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I'm mostly in agreement.

However, some of the "You're Allowed to Be Entitled" argument loses its merit when the players KNEW that being connected - even for single player - was a requirement WELL in advance of the game's release.

A bigger message would have been sent if the people who are complaining now hadn't bought the game in the first place. That's really the root of the "Just eat the shit" argument. They paid for it knowingly. They made their bed, so they have to lie in it.

That's part of why I didn't buy the game at all. Mostly I didn't buy it because I don't care about the Diablo games anymore (wasn't really a big fan to begin with). But if the same DRM were to be put in place for, say, the next Mass Effect or Dragon Age game (both are series I friggin' love to the shut-up-and-take-my-money extent), then I'd boycott those games too. It'd pain me, but I wouldn't want the developers to kick me around, and if enough people boycotted the games, it'd send more of a message to the developer than complaining that you're entitled to not have to put up with a DRM you KNEW about when you bought the game ever will.

Because at the end of the day, they still have YOUR money, which is all they wanted in the first place. Companies pay attention to money flow, not blogs.

As much I as agree this situation is complete bullshit I can't help but agree with this Blizzard pretty much showed us the shit before release and people still went ahead and ate it.

If they hadn't said that being always on is a requirement then this would be a fair enough argument that I would support but I don't even care about Diablo 3 and I knew the servers would fail at launch.

To be fair, not everyone who is complaining about the Always Online policy bought the game. I've seen a few people saying they'd buy D3 if it didn't have the policy get flamed and attacked by others saying pretty much what Sterling said with the whole "Be glad you're eating shit because others have nothing to eat".

Now that I have no problem with that is a much better way of going about it because once you have bought it Blizzard have your money and it's too late instead of not giving them your money because they use DRM you don't like.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Blizzard said sorry and thank you for your patience.

I dont think thats enough though, it needs to be 'We really fucked up bad and made alot of people deservedly pissed at us and youre all justified, heres a free ingame pet or something'

They wont

A free in game pet that can take the loot you want to sell back to town for you so can you keep questing.

Not that anything like that exists in a very similar game that's coming out soon at $40 cheaper, without all the restrictions. Nope.

 

[draythefingerless]

You know what else is sh!t publishers think we'll just eat right up?: Games that are broken on release.

You know what game Jim loved and had nothing bad to say about?: Skyrim.

You know where this is going?: Yeah.

No i dont. please continue. im anxious to see where its going. my money is on a strawman argument. but please. fascinate me.

Just sayin', Jim isnt immune to a 'chocolate' moustache. Seems he's willing to call out some BS, but ignore others.

This deserved to get called out just as much as (if not even more than) online DMR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o

Yet it got nothing but praise.

Because the game is praisable. and so is diablo 3. But you see, the part where you say this should be called out just as much or more is where i have a problem. Bugs and glitches are not on purpose. The game makers dont want them to exist, they are accidents and actually Skyrim wasnt that bad in terms of bugs n glitches, given how HUGE the game is. The online Diablo was purposeful, it had greedy intentions, and is downright bad decision on part of Blizzard. So no, the bugs n glitches of Skyrim are not as bad as this is. You are exageratting its importance.

However, i do agree that they should be called out, and that people should criticize bethesda to run more thorough testing. But dont compare accidental game breaking bugs to purposeful online DRM wich they KNEW would stop people from playing their game.

 

[Naeras]

Ehm, did I try to redeem Blizzard in any way?
(This includes DRM, pricing etc)

The thing is: If people buy the game and complain afterwards about stuff that was well known and discussed MONTHS before release they have no right to complain at all. They already gave money to that slob, they already justified this decision by pouring money into it. Your words, your complaints, everything you do afterwards is meaningless.

Don't buy the game if you don't like the business practicess!

I hoped Jim would turn around and lecture people about being a responsible customer. But since I have yet to see an episode of him that is not repeating of popular opinion I am also not really disappointed.

I'm sort of pleased with people complaining, even though they should have seen it coming. If they're complaining now, they can make it clear that Blizzard won't be allowed to pull shit like this in the future. Of course that only works if they're actually not buying the next game(s) Blizzard makes, unless they change their business practice. Which we all know isn't going to happen, as Blizzard could release something they made in three hours by using Game Maker and a bottle of vodka, and it would still outsell everything that year. Geh.

Other than that I actually agree with you. Being a responsible customer is important.

 

[Baldr]

I pay $60 every 4 months of World of Warcraft, according to this logic there needs to be an offline mode so like every Tuesday morning when the servers are down or I lose internet connection that I can play with my friends in off-line mode.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

Well...crap. Now I'm glad my laptop's processor is too slow to play this game. I won't have to shell out $60 for a useless DVD-ROM.

 

[Mechanix]

O.K., what it has is magic pixie fairy dust. That makes the game unplayable at times. The game you bought. For $60. In the single-player mode that should require no internet connection whatsoever.

Wait, I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Creating a new game in D3 is the same as zoning into a dungeon by yourself in WoW. That is not DRM.

Yeah, that's true. And your point? Jim Sterling just made a 6 minute video explaining why making D3 like a WoW instance is a bad thing. You haven't refuted anything he's said yet.

 

[Naeras]

I pay $60 every 4 months of World of Warcraft, according to this logic there needs to be an offline mode so like every Tuesday morning when the servers are down or I lose internet connection that I can play with my friends in off-line mode.

WoW is an MMO, not a single player game. The comparison isn't valid for that reason.

 

[jehk]

While that's a factually true statement, and Jim was a little schizophrenic about the point, the main complaint is that the game was literally unplayable for vast numbers of people for an unacceptably large period of time.

I'm with you when complaining about the game being unplayable. I bitched about it too. In WoW I played on a server that was down a lot. Totally valid point.

Diablo 3 is still an online game. The only difference between D3 and WoW is the word massively.

It's a completely separate issue from DRM.

Jim shouldn't be conflating the two.

 

[MB202]

See, THIS is what happens when the people in charge don't have any idea what they're doing, or how the Internet works.

 

[jehk]

WoW is an MMO, not a single player game. The comparison isn't valid for that reason.

D3 is not a single player game either.

 

[The Human Torch]

O.K., what it has is magic pixie fairy dust. That makes the game unplayable at times. The game you bought. For $60. In the single-player mode that should require no internet connection whatsoever.

Wait, I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Creating a new game in D3 is the same as zoning into a dungeon by yourself in WoW. That is not DRM.

But Diablo 3 is not an MMO. WoW is an MMO, Diablo is not an MMO. No matter if you define Diablo 3 as singleplayer or multiplayer, it is not an MMO. So Diablo 3 runs on DRM. Same as Steam and Origin are glorified DRM systems.

 

[darkszero]

Except of course, Diablo 3 is not an MMO, the ignorance here is in your posts.

1) We aren't connecting to an online server at first. When you log in you are logging directly into Battle.Net 2, which is just a giant glorified lobby you wait around in before you decide like jumping into the actual online part. Hell I hate to even call it a lobby because there isn't even any ability to communicate with others UNLESS you are in a game. In that regard, Diablo 2 was more of an MMO because at least Battle.Net 1.0 allowed for free communication outside of a game.

2) There is ZERO excuse for restricting players to connecting online even if they play single player. Another key difference right there, you can't play WoW as a single-player title can you? Nope! Sure you can play outside of a group, but the fact that other players exist around and interact with you directly or indirectly means its still an MMO. Diablo 1 and 2 never required you to be online just to play without anyone else.

3) This IS DRM. If they wanted to protect their AH economy to ensure the biggest chunk of cash interest came their way, all they had to do was separate the Online Characters from the Offline ones. It's not hard, its been done before trust me, Diablo 2 certainly had no issue with it. Hell, if they were worried about hacks and everything, they could just have a 1-time Online check each time the game is launched before letting you decide whether or not you played offline or online.

The only reason I've seen people support Online-Only outside of the crap thrown around, is that the game we own isn't even the full game. It's online-only because Activision-Blizzard decided to withheld major chunks of necessary code from the release client, only to feed it as a temporary file to the client when you reach the areas its needed. Afterwards it gets tossed out until the next time.

Which well... is complete and utter bullshit itself. That kind of practice is even worse than Capcom and their blatant hard-on for Disk-locked DLC and shenanigans. Of course though, this is "Blizzard" we are talking about right? I mean god forbid that even one step of theirs isn't completely perfect, much less a game.

As an additional note, Ubisoft attempted this exact same kind of shit mate. Guess what? Hackers slammed the Authentication servers needed for the Online only DRM, rendered the games completely unplayable. They've since slowly backed off and away from it.

Diablo 3 is a MMO much like Guild Wars is a MMO. Except there's a 'lobby' in D3 (I agree that thing sucks).
However, most of the game happens in online instances where you can play alone or with some friends.

There's no Disk-locked DLC or content that is streamed when you need it. There client's there, completely open for datamining.
Your client is a client much like Guild Wars' and World of Warcraft's clients: contain information relevant for you, the player. What isn't available is information about item drops and storage, monster AI, map generation.

These are the facts. Now the reasoning behind it are possibly the following:
- Stopping the pirates.
- Stopping the item duping/hacking.
- Having no offline/online differences.

My bet is on the second one. That it can be easily used for 1 and 3 may have helped, but I don't think it was the reasoning behind it this time.

 

[Invadergray]

So...much... left-click

 

[jehk]

But Diablo 3 is not an MMO. WoW is an MMO, Diablo is not an MMO. No matter if you define Diablo 3 as singleplayer or multiplayer, it is not an MMO. So Diablo 3 runs on DRM. Same as Steam and Origin are glorified DRM systems.

D3 is an online multiplayer game. Jumping to the conclusion that its DRM is bad reasoning. I'm just pointing it out.