Oh, I know it. I wouldn't want that again either. And I do think the online requirement will slow down the hacks. It's just not worth giving up offline play to me, both in practice and in terms of what it represents.Abandon4093 said:
So, Pirates are Playing Diablo 3
- Thread starter Grey Day for Elcia
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It takes more then just a crack to play D3 offline. So much of the game is server side. Pirates will have to pretty much rewrite the entire thing.Mudkipith said:
You can never 100% prevent piracy. You can only slow them down. Having to reverse engineer a D3 server will take long enough that piracy is pretty much eliminated.
Also, this reduces hacks. If the game could be played offline all of the code would be on the client's machine. Having a good portion of that code on the server, a blackbox for hackers, makes it harder for them to find exploits.
hey look, so can i 
and i paid for the game.
not only that, i've been able to play it. yes, even on launch day.
and i paid for the game.not only that, i've been able to play it. yes, even on launch day.
Nope it's 12 really. They had the game done in five, but they didn't like it *cough*milkingWoW*cough* so they made another version in another six, so basically 12. Blizzard just loves that it'll be done when it's done approach, but that's no guarantee they've still got what it takes to make decent games.TheKasp said:
Depends on what you define by "cracked". After some better digging i found out that someone in the community managed to fool the beta client to be able to log to a totally empty world for some seconds, which is probably what the OP is babbling about; so if you think logging 10 seconds to a barren level of diablo III is "playing it", well, he would be correct.evilneko said:
From my PoV however, it isn't, and seeing how WoW for example is still not working halfway decently on pirate servers, i mean private servers, after 9 years of them trying... i dunno, really surprised people saying it will/has been done. Then again, there are people that belive in yetis, so to each it's own.
I am betting it will actually work, because:Abandon4093 said:
- Item hacking is not an issue in WoW
- Blizzard has moneyz to be made from keeping hacks off, and we all know how much blizz loves green
There might be one or two big exploits at some point done by pro hackers (not your usual punks) because thre is serious money to be made from hacking it, but won't affect the game long therm.
If anything i would be more worried about pro chineese farmers (as a generic therm, not refering to the nationality).
Now, that opens the discussion to 2 more points:
- Was it really needed to kill the single player offline mode for that?
- If it was needed, was it worth it?
Now, i don't think it was actually needed, but it made things easier for blizz while simultaneusly promoting player interaction and an online community, which makes online transactions grow and their cut of the transactions bloom.
nway, i am late for some stuff, c ya later guys.
Well, SC II is awesome and it's only getting better in 2012-2013. Diablo has been fun this days, not sure how it will age.Inkidu said:
That said, both require you to go multiplayer and in the SC II case it requires a lot of work to get good enough to be able to play it. The single player is forgettable.
agreed on all of this. i have a few blizzard fanboy friends and i've told em no a hundred times by now because of the bullshit that is in the game (hell my decision was confirmed with the drm/lan horseshit alone, not even mentioning how much it fails as a game that's supposedly been in the works for 5+ years, this shit is a step down from D2 in so many ways)Adam Jensen said:
Yeah, it's funny how people assume sequels and stuff go into development right after the previous game is released. It's the same logical fallacy everyone used for Duke Nukem Forever, a game that went through so many engine changes and scrapped designs that what Gearbox ended up with was a mere husk and then they had something like a year and a half of actual development time to try and make it into a working game. It wasn't in development for fourteen years, it was in development hell for fourteen years. There's a difference.TheKasp said:
As far as Diablo III is concerned, I find it hard to believe that development on it began all the way back in 2000, and there's absolutely no logical reason to assume so. Even if it did "technically" start development back then it was, like Duke Nukem, in development hell for so long and went through so many engine changes and re-designs that it's not even the same game they would've begun making back then.
Oh, wait, I'm trying to stay away from Diablo threads...
DRM is no longer about stopping piracy, it is about gaining control over and monetising how the normal customer plays games.Grey Day for Elcia said:
Systems like Battlenet and IWnet actively prevent you using mods. Thus re-skins and user generated content no longer exist, allowing you the player to buy maps, guns and levels a couple at a time for $15 a pop. As opposed to users generating thousands for free.
Also, it allows the publisher to take away 'your' game at any time, for any reason. For a major title like Bf3 or Diablo that'll probably be a while yet, but those sports games EA farts out every twelve months? They can those just as regularly as they release, stating a catch all lack of use regardless of actual player numbers.
Basically, DRM is turning how, when and even what you play into series of predictable and publisher controlled micro-transactions.
http://thepiratebay.se/search/diablo%203/0/99/0Dryk said:
So far, leachers are vastly outnumbering seeders, so the download speed is probably pretty hilarious.
That being said, it's a good thing Blizzard included that always-on DRM so that no one could pirate their game. That inconvenience to the honest consumer was really worth the trouble.
They should've obviously rented servers. They knew there was going to be server overload, which in turn actually affected other things that are not Diablo - their websites and WoW had to go offline as well.Rangarig said:
It's not like they don't already do it. WoW runs on rented AT&T servers as well.
If you were thinking about the "bypass" then no, it's fake. There is no "authentication code" that you need to use Battlenet, you either have the game on your account or you don't.mrdude2010 said:
All the others are pre-load copies that anyone could (can?) download using Blizzards own downloader or the beta with included server emulator (which doesn't work properly and is way, way, way off to being even remotely complete).
I'm happily playing my purchased copy of Diablo 3 while pirates are left behind. For now. For a very long time.