Forced online play

[danielbaard]

What do you guys think of Blizzard's move on making the single player online as well as the multiplayer? I personally disagree with it, and believe that it's a large step backwards for online gaming. I hope it doesn't become a fad.

[Pr⊕phet]

Your thinking is yesterday.

[czc]

What do you think of Ubisofts version that doesn't work?

[Pr⊕phet]

Maybe you guys didn't support the forefathers of it so religiously they might have thought twice about trying it. However on the other hand it is a change, it will come and will be implemented. It always has been a matter of time.

Believe me if it was up to blizzard we'd be all having 1st class networks/infrastructures, but it isn't. Nor can't it be expected of them to lag behind with those who can't keep up. That glass of wine has been poured by all those who kept the wrong people in power and is still keeping them there.

Steam forces you to be online even if it has an offline ability you cant be forever offline. That is much less fail than Ubisoft. Just because Ubisoft is retarded doesn't mean all version will be. No, the spoilt lan bratz are now complaining because for the first time they actually feel that feeling that places them not first or second but last when it comes down to crunch.

...That is what I think.

[weakest_link]

blizzard is doing what they need to do to get sales ... no cracked copy of diablo 3 online yet so what they doing is definitely working

[Pr⊕phet]

blizzard is doing what they need to do to get sales ... no cracked copy of diablo 3 online yet so what they doing is definitely working

Clearly you've not been following all the ends. There's been emulation since the first beta event, I've posted about it (http://mygaming.co.za/forum/showthread.php/19676-Diablo-3-emulation-already-well-under-way).

[weakest_link]

erm that sandbox thing is like window shopping to be honest :-/

[Wyzak]

Maybe you guys didn't support the forefathers of it so religiously they might have thought twice about trying it. However on the other hand it is a change, it will come and will be implemented. It always has been a matter of time.

Believe me if it was up to blizzard we'd be all having 1st class networks/infrastructures, but it isn't. Nor can't it be expected of them to lag behind with those who can't keep up. That glass of wine has been poured by all those who kept the wrong people in power and is still keeping them there.

I've seen you post several times and it's almost like you believe that in a few years time we will have 10ms latency to the US and EU.

The reality is that communication is very close to its maximum speed that it will ever be able to reach. The new WACS cable has a fibre2fibre point2point latency of 138ms. It is on the best route between ZA and the UK. That is the lowest that your latency will ever be able to get between ZA and UK.

Will you be content if all games from now on require always on Internet only and your latency can only ever go as low as 150ms? I wouldn't be, and as such I hope that every company that tries to enforce this ends up with a lot of egg on their face.

[Cranky]

They can force it. But give us a local server :D

[Wyzak]

They can force it. But give us a local server :D

Sadly recent experience has shown that not all companies care enough to provide local servers ;)

[Pr⊕phet]

I've seen you post several times and it's almost like you believe that in a few years time we will have 10ms latency to the US and EU.
Please link where I said we will have 10ms like in eu or us.



The reality is that communication is very close to its maximum speed that it will ever be able to reach. The new WACS cable has a fibre2fibre point2point latency of 138ms. It is on the best route between ZA and the UK. That is the lowest that your latency will ever be able to get between ZA and UK. See above.



Will you be content if all games from now on require always on Internet only and your latency can only ever go as low as 150ms? I wouldn't be, and as such I hope that every company that tries to enforce this ends up with a lot of egg on their face.Relevance please? 80% of my games is just online.


Sadly recent experience has shown that not all companies care enough to provide local servers ;)RSA is hardly a star in the universe, much less a drop in the drinking water of USA.

[Fivel]

RSA is hardly a star in the universe, much less a drop in the drinking water of USA.

Absolutely, clearly some believe that we need some special sort of treatment. If we can sell a gazillion copies of the game, then we have a big voice.....failing that it remains a squeak ;)

[Wyzak]

Absolutely, clearly some believe that we need some special sort of treatment. If we can sell a gazillion copies of the game, then we have a big voice.....failing that it remains a squeak ;)

So because we don't have a big voice we should just keep quiet? Nice!


Please link where I said we will have 10ms like in eu or us.
You are the one who is continuously blaming all of our Internet related issues on our government and local infrastructure. So tell me, what latency are you expecting? What difference will it make to your d3 latency if our local network is on par with South Koreas?


Relevance please? 80% of my games is just online.
Are you playing all of them on international servers? Or are you playing on local servers?



IMO it will ruin the gaming industry in SA if we are forced to play online and the companies refuse to host local servers.

Just have a look at the amount of people complaining about the latency on sites like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100&page=1 or even the comments on http://mygaming.co.za/news/features/38130-diablo-iii-review-roundup.html

Do you think all of the people complaining are in countries outside of the US and EU?

[Thepoofbear]

I agree that a local server for D3 would be amazing :D but who in this country cares enough to spend that kind of money?

[Fivel]

So because we don't have a big voice we should just keep quiet? Nice!

Not at all, but also understanding the realities of big business would also be nice, sadly while I would love to believe that Blizzard cares about the xxx (you fill in the number here) of SA players, they don't. Protecting their considerable investment via online play is more likely to be higher on their agenda.

[Ancalagon]

The reality is forcing people to play online has nothing to do with delivering a better game or service and everything to do with money and piracy.

The piracy reason is obvious, what is also obvious is that is has not stopped piracy. Pirates 1 - Blizzard 0 - Gamers 0. Blizzard still loses to pirates, gamers still lose progress due to being kicked out of the game, etc etc. And even first world countries experience connection issues! Its not just us.

The money reason is of course related to the auction house. Blizzard makes money from every sale, as we all know, which is also why modding is not allowed. Imagine if I made my own mod that gave me all of the uber equipment in the game - Blizzard would lose money. So they dont allow it. Same with any sort of cheating in single player.

The fact of the matter is, Blizzard deprived of us of choice for the sake of their own profits. It was not for our own good. Allowing offline or online play, as most companies do, is the better solution. But Blizzard is too greedy for that. So instead its online or nothing.

Well in my case it really is nothing, I have not bought D3, will not buy D3, and will be buying Torchlight 2 instead. I am voting with my wallet and hope the rest of you who are unhappy about the always on connection and lack of LAN play will do the same, although I think its already too late.

[Wyzak]

I agree that a local server for D3 would be amazing :D but who in this country cares enough to spend that kind of money?

Numerous ISPs (MWEB, WA, etc) have offered their servers and bandwidth for hosting the game and have been in contact with Blizzard. But Blizzard didn't budge.

[Wyzak]

Not at all, but also understanding the realities of big business would also be nice, sadly while I would love to believe that Blizzard cares about the xxx (you fill in the number here) of SA players, they don't. Protecting their considerable investment via online play is more likely to be higher on their agenda.

A significant portion of their money will have to go to keep those dedicated servers running. There aren't subscriptions for Diablo, so they will have to make their money elsewhere (on a sustainable basis). Which is probably why they came up with the RMAH idea. At least that will provide a continuous income for them which will go some length to paying for the servers.

Let's face facts here, Blizzard may go to great lengths to combat piracy. But it's not like they are struggling financially... Instead of grudgingly accepting some pirated copies they have now gone and pissed off a significant amount of paying customers and also made some people look elsewhere. Time will tell if that was a good idea or if it will bite them in the ass.

[Ancalagon]

Well they are suffering piracy anyway, so all this money spent on "Battle.net 2.0" was wasted. Plus it has caused them lost sales.

[Wyzak]

Well in my case it really is nothing, I have not bought D3, will not buy D3, and will be buying Torchlight 2 instead. I am voting with my wallet and hope the rest of you who are unhappy about the always on connection and lack of LAN play will do the same, although I think its already too late.

Couldn't agree with you more. I have also decided that I won't be buying D3, and I have already bought Torchlight II en mass(8 copies and counting now).

I wonder how Blizzard can justify selling D3 with all of its issues for R450 when you can pick up Torchlight II (with Torchlight I thrown in for free, and none of the D3 issues) for $20, or $15 (if you buy the 4-pack).

I will PM my email address to you and we can join up in Torchlight some time :)

[Ancalagon]

The simple reason is that the development cost of D3 was far, far higher than that of TL2. If you have a look at the credits of both games, you will see the difference in the number of people involved. Also I know TL2 uses the Ogre engine (at least TL1 did), which would save the TL2.

But the thing is, you are right. Look at it from the consumers point of view - only immediate and obvious difference is the cutscenes, which I can watch on YouTube in HD. Other than that, similar number of characters, graphics look similar except for the style. So if I was looking to buy one, on what basis is D3 worth 3 times the money. Only 2 reasons - the name, and the fact that because of that name, more people will be playing the multiplayer. Number 2 matters not one white for me, I would rather LAN with friends. Or online multiplayer with friends, whatever.

Thats what I think the problem with the gaming industry is - the business model they use is not very clever. They invest so much into a game that they have to do all sorts of crazy things to break even.

[Thepoofbear]

Numerous ISPs (MWEB, WA, etc) have offered their servers and bandwidth for hosting the game and have been in contact with Blizzard. But Blizzard didn't budge.

This is Blizzard shooting themselves in the foot to be honest :/

[Ancalagon]

This is Blizzard shooting themselves in the foot to be honest :/

Why? South African gamers bought the game left right and center. Blizzard already has its money, why bother providing servers now?

[Gamy]

Regardless of any arguments for or against the game requiring an internet connection, there's no reason (other than them wanting DRM) we shouldn't be able to play offline even if it means an offline character can never go online to avoid cheating.

[Pr⊕phet]

So because we don't have a big voice we should just keep quiet? Nice!No, but you could drop a little in the entitlement and "just because they make a lot of money" area. Seems there is an illusion of just because company X makes XXXXXXXX they have to sell at -X rate instead of XX.



You are the one who is continuously blaming all of our Internet related issues on our government and local infrastructure. So tell me, what latency are you expecting? What difference will it make to your d3 latency if our local network is on par with South Koreas? So no links then, hey? Seems I didn't say those things you said I've said.

You might want to brush up on why our local grid needs attention over just cables and cables arriving. There's more than enough material on this. I'd suggest myadsl and its searching function.



Are you playing all of them on international servers? Or are you playing on local servers? So now the question changed. First you wanted to know if they were online, but since most of my games are you cunningly changed it to INT/LOCAL split. Without connection I can safely say my games wont function and I'd be forced to play some of my older games.



IMO it will ruin the gaming industry in SA if we are forced to play online and the companies refuse to host local servers.Is this now INT and or Local since you've changed the question quickly (see above)



Just have a look at the amount of people complaining about the latency on sites like http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews?sort-by=date&num_items=100&page=1 or even the comments on http://mygaming.co.za/news/features/38130-diablo-iii-review-roundup.html

Do you think all of the people complaining are in countries outside of the US and EU?And so was WoW and about every other game in its initial days. Please link an online title that ran flawlessly 24.7 on launch.


Numerous ISPs (MWEB, WA, etc) have offered their servers and bandwidth for hosting the game and have been in contact with Blizzard. But Blizzard didn't budge.

I think you need to sit down and think hard about all the costs involve. Just because its hosted here doesn't mean blizzard don't have to be involved ever. Ever done cross country sever setup and support? I doubt it.


Couldn't agree with you more. I have also decided that I won't be buying D3, and I have already bought Torchlight II en mass(8 copies and counting now).

I wonder how Blizzard can justify selling D3 with all of its issues for R450 when you can pick up Torchlight II (with Torchlight I thrown in for free, and none of the D3 issues) for $20, or $15 (if you buy the 4-pack).

I will PM my email address to you and we can join up in Torchlight some time :)
Once again another financial misconception. The scope of TL2 really isn't the same of Diablo3. If writing an application has is so many facets involved, how much more would a game that they had not only developed, but also implement a whole new bnet?

TL2 is simple in comparison. I would say so.

[Jabberwocky]

I don`t have a problem with it if it works, in diablo`s case the login errors and latency is detracting from the experience of what it could have been.
Its blizzard`s right to implement whichever model they want, they could have made it a facebook game if they wanted to, as long as they fulfill their end of the bargain.

[Wyzak]

No, but you could drop a little in the entitlement and "just because they make a lot of money" area. Seems there is an illusion of just because company X makes XXXXXXXX they have to sell at -X rate instead of XX.
I decided not to buy the game because Blizzard removed the features that I valued most. As for the entitlement I agree with http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-whining-about-diablo-iii-227792.phtml The people who bought the game ARE entitled to getting what they paid for.


So no links then, hey? Seems I didn't say those things you said I've said.
Sorry boet, life doesn't revolve around you. I actually have other stuff to do than go and read through all of the stuff you post.


You might want to brush up on why our local grid needs attention over just cables and cables arriving. There's more than enough material on this. I'd suggest myadsl and its searching function.
Nice attempt to dodge the actual question. How does the local grid negatively affect d3?


So now the question changed. First you wanted to know if they were online, but since most of my games are you cunningly changed it to INT/LOCAL split. Without connection I can safely say my games wont function and I'd be forced to play some of my older games.
Yes because local servers vs int servers make a fundamental difference. So please answer the question.


Is this now INT and or Local since you've changed the question quickly (see above)
It is primarily INT, however I don't agree with local only servers either if its not an MMO which actually justifies the servers.

If you look at the number of people complaining and actually read the comments you will see that it is not just people outside of the US and EU complaining. There are people in those countries who are unable to get good Internet connections for whatever reason. The US is also so enormous that you won't necessary get a good ping to servers everywhere in the US.


And so was WoW and about every other game in its initial days. Please link an online title that ran flawlessly 24.7 on launch.
It's not just the launch. It has been a week now and people are still complaining and the complaints won't suddenly stop once everything is running smoothly due to the reasons that I posted above. This model of theirs will always result in pissed off customers.


I think you need to sit down and think hard about all the costs involve. Just because its hosted here doesn't mean blizzard don't have to be involved ever. Ever done cross country sever setup and support? I doubt it.
That's only a problem if they force the always-online model. Those companies are willing to help with the costs because it will improve the experience for the customers. Isn't that suppose to be important?


Once again another financial misconception. The scope of TL2 really isn't the same of Diablo3. If writing an application has is so many facets involved, how much more would a game that they had not only developed, but also implement a whole new bnet?
They forced the customers to use the bnet. Not the customers problem.

[Ancalagon]

Also if it were not forced online, a company could make a dedicated server program available, and allow people to run their own servers. So say Mweb could host a server here. But no, that would make it too easy for all the nasty pirates, says Blizzard, sheepishly ignoring the results of a Google search for Diablo 3 torrent.

Regarding battle.net 2, its a sunk cost anyway. It was paid for by the sales of Wow and SC2. That Diablo 3 has kept its higher than average price is just price gouging, and they get away with it because of their strong brand name and the fact consumers are sheep. As I said before though, D3 really cost so much because of things like cinematics.

EDIT: Really, I could swallow the price if the online part were optional. Prophet, why does it need to be forced online? Forget latencies and whether it works and prices and what not, why is it good for the consumer for blizzard to not allow me to plan LAN play with my friends?

[TBlaar]

tl;dr

If you are a gamer and you STILL do not have an always-on internet connection, then you do not deserve to play Diablo3 :D

[Wyzak]

tl;dr

If you are a gamer and you STILL do not have an always-on internet connection, then you do not deserve to play Diablo3 :D

That's not the point, most of us have always-on internet connections.

It sucks not being able to play when your line is down for 3 weeks.
It sucks not being able to play where you want to when you want to on the version that you want to. People still go on vacations to places where there aren't Internet and if you are bored why can't you play the game that you bought?
It sucks having to play with a 250ms latency when I could have played with the same people with a latency of 25ms.
It sucks not being able to play single-player with a 0ms latency.
It sucks having to "LAN" the game at the friends house with the best connection, not the friends house with the nicest setup...

[Ancalagon]

Its sucks living in the country where the game was developed and still not being able to play the game you legally bought because Blizzard servers had a whoopsie.

Yes, even Americans are negatively affected by this. Its not just us with our terrible internet connections.

When we have cheap 100mbps cable connections that use wormholes to deliver sub 100ms latency to other parts of the world, I still want online play to optional. Why? Its about choice. I dont want to be forced to play online, I want to be able to play my single player games either with myself or with my friend in another room or the same room, without our traffic being routed to Kazakhstan and back.

[Wyzak]

It sucks that Blizzard made their problem (piracy) our problem (DRM)!

If you bought the game you aren't affected by piracy.
If you bought the game you are affected by DRM.
That doesn't compute!

[Fivel]

Its sucks living in the country where the game was developed and still not being able to play the game you legally bought because Blizzard servers had a whoopsie.

Yes, even Americans are negatively affected by this. Its not just us with our terrible internet connections.

When we have cheap 100mbps cable connections that use wormholes to deliver sub 100ms latency to other parts of the world, I still want online play to optional. Why? Its about choice. I dont want to be forced to play online, I want to be able to play my single player games either with myself or with my friend in another room or the same room, without our traffic being routed to Kazakhstan and back.

You are not forced to do anything, you are not forced to buy the game. If you want to play the game that's what is being offered to you. It is clearly stated on the box.

[Ancalagon]

You are not forced to do anything, you are not forced to buy the game. If you want to play the game that's what is being offered to you. It is clearly stated on the box.

I know, thats why I didnt buy it.

For those that did buy it, why do you think its okay for Blizzard to play your single player game online and when Blizzard deems it okay?

[RoosTa]

Because it was never sold as a single player game. It was marketed as an online game.

I received what was sold; An online game that I can mutli-play with my friends.

[Wyzak]

I received what was sold; An online game that I can mutli-play with my friends.

So you've never had a moments downtime? Lucky you!

[RoosTa]

So you've never had a moments downtime? Lucky you!
The only downtime I've had was Sunday, during the emergency maintenance.

But then all online games have downtime and its been the trend for years now;
http://www.enterbf3.com/topic/7293-planned-downtime-battlefield-3-servers/
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784745
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784747&page=313
http://www.swtor.com/blog/scheduled-maintenance-january-10th-2012
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/322674
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/670658-Update-4-25-Maintenance-Server-ONLINE-Forums
http://boards.lineage2.com/showthread.php?p=3210795
http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?347379-Updated-Planned-server-maintenance-on-2011-10-21-02-30-EST-(06-30-GMT)

[Pr⊕phet]

I decided not to buy the game because Blizzard removed the features that I valued most. As for the entitlement I agree with http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-whining-about-diablo-iii-227792.phtml The people who bought the game ARE entitled to getting what they paid for.Aah yes the self entitlement. What a bitch. I bought the game very well knowing it was an on-line only title, if you didn't knew that then I'd report to the nearest education centre for reevaluation.



Sorry boet, life doesn't revolve around you. Unless your mother gave birth to me I'm not your boet.



I actually have other stuff to do than go and read through all of the stuff you post.You did have enough time to read through my stuff and reply.



Nice attempt to dodge the actual question. How does the local grid negatively affect d3?You think that just more and more cables are going to be great? lol? oh wait internet users stop at price and can't think ahead, right?



Yes because local servers vs int servers make a fundamental difference. So please answer the question.
Unfortunately for you most of my games are INT part 2 and of those two actually just one are local... quake live.



It is primarily INT, however I don't agree with local only servers either if its not an MMO which actually justifies the servers.

If you look at the number of people complaining and actually read the comments you will see that it is not just people outside of the US and EU complaining. There are people in those countries who are unable to get good Internet connections for whatever reason. The US is also so enormous that you won't necessary get a good ping to servers everywhere in the US.Please link where I've said it was just locally.



It's not just the launch. It has been a week now and people are still complaining and the complaints won't suddenly stop once everything is running smoothly due to the reasons that I posted above. This model of theirs will always result in pissed off customers.Only the stupid ones imho or the hizzy fitters like yourself that doesn't even own the title. Ow wait you won the CE... god what a waste of good merchandise.



That's only a problem if they force the always-online model. Those companies are willing to help with the costs because it will improve the experience for the customers. Isn't that suppose to be important?Who is forced? No one was forced to buy the game, we are back at the retarded entitlement. I BOUGHT! I OWN IT! I MUST HAVE MY WAY 100% ALL OF THE TIME! UG UG UG! ALL LOGIC OUT OF DOOR!



They forced the customers to use the bnet. Not the customers problem.Once again no one was forced to buy it or play it and it was very well stipulated. If you can't read properly or lack understanding... well it is not blizzards fault.


That's not the point, most of us have always-on internet connections.

It sucks not being able to play when your line is down for 3 weeks.
It sucks not being able to play where you want to when you want to on the version that you want to. People still go on vacations to places where there aren't Internet and if you are bored why can't you play the game that you bought?
It sucks having to play with a 250ms latency when I could have played with the same people with a latency of 25ms.
It sucks not being able to play single-player with a 0ms latency.
It sucks having to "LAN" the game at the friends house with the best connection, not the friends house with the nicest setup...

It sucks that Blizzard made their problem (piracy) our problem (DRM)!

If you bought the game you aren't affected by piracy.
If you bought the game you are affected by DRM.
That doesn't compute!Seems you misunderstood what a value added service is. bnet is the steam for diablo, it's a system (not perfect) that was meant to bring interconnectivity. It is going to be used more and more. So what you don't have an option to play offline, didn't you read the box?


So you've never had a moments downtime? Lucky you!

I would suggest further reading as provided by RoosTa


The only downtime I've had was Sunday, during the emergency maintenance.

But then all online games have downtime and its been the trend for years now;
http://www.enterbf3.com/topic/7293-planned-downtime-battlefield-3-servers/
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784745
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784747&page=313
http://www.swtor.com/blog/scheduled-maintenance-january-10th-2012
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/322674
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/670658-Update-4-25-Maintenance-Server-ONLINE-Forums
http://boards.lineage2.com/showthread.php?p=3210795
http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?347379-Updated-Planned-server-maintenance-on-2011-10-21-02-30-EST-(06-30-GMT)

[Pr⊕phet]

Because it was never sold as a single player game. It was marketed as an online game.

I received what was sold; An online game that I can mutli-play with my friends.

I was only able to read the blue parts :)

[Wyzak]

It would appear that it is impossible having a debate with you without you getting personal. You still keep on dodging the questions. Thank you for giving so much attention to my posts. You really make me feel special Pr⊕phet.

Like Ancalagon said before: In what way does it hurt you if Blizzard offers an offline experience for D3?

Did you buy the game? Yes
Would you have bought the game if it also had offline?

Did I buy the game? No, I've now won it (Hell I should be burnt at the stake for complaining about Blizzards DRM! What have I said negatively about the game itself?)
Would I have bough the game if it also had offline? Most certainly

Piracy is Blizzards problem, DRM is our problem. Why are you ok with them making their problem ours?

I will play the game now, and I will in all likelihood find that the game itself is a 9 or a 10. But because of the DRM it will never be more than a 7 or 8 game.

[Ancalagon]

I just cant understand why it needs to be a requirement.

I'm all for online multiplayer. Its pretty cool. Especially with modern games. But why make online a requirement for everyone, even those who just want to play single player? Or those who want to play LAN? Why?

@RoosTa

But it is a single player game. I can play it alone if I want to. I just have to be connected. Why?

You can shout about the virtues of online multiplayer all you want, I'm sure its great fun. But you havent adequately demonstrated why it needs to be a requirement. Why can it not be optional? Everyone seems to be wanting to dodge that question.

Prophet and RoosTa, how does it directly benefit you for the game to be online only? Ignore server downtime and our complaints. How exactly does it make your online experience richer if nobody can play it offline?

I'm putting it here and now that you will not be able to answer me and that there is no benefit to you, and that you put up with the online only requirement even when it irritates you because of server downtime. You put up with it, you dont actually enjoy it.

I'm not saying you dont enjoy online multiplayer - clearly you do. I'm saying you dont enjoy that its a REQUIREMENT. It doesnt add anything to your experience.

[StaggerLee]

Who is forced? No one was forced to buy the game, we are back at the retarded entitlement. I BOUGHT! I OWN IT! I MUST HAVE MY WAY 100% ALL OF THE TIME! UG UG UG! ALL LOGIC OUT OF DOOR!


I'm sorry, I fail to see how expecting a product to work 100% of the time (allowing for weekly server maintenance) is entitlement. If you bought a TV and it only turned on three days after you bought it, you would be a little upset.

[RoosTa]

I just cant understand why it needs to be a requirement.

I'm all for online multiplayer. Its pretty cool. Especially with modern games. But why make online a requirement for everyone, even those who just want to play single player? Or those who want to play LAN? Why?

@RoosTa

But it is a single player game. I can play it alone if I want to. I just have to be connected. Why?

You can shout about the virtues of online multiplayer all you want, I'm sure its great fun. But you havent adequately demonstrated why it needs to be a requirement. Why can it not be optional? Everyone seems to be wanting to dodge that question.

Prophet and RoosTa, how does it directly benefit you for the game to be online only? Ignore server downtime and our complaints. How exactly does it make your online experience richer if nobody can play it offline?

I'm putting it here and now that you will not be able to answer me and that there is no benefit to you, and that you put up with the online only requirement even when it irritates you because of server downtime. You put up with it, you dont actually enjoy it.

I'm not saying you dont enjoy online multiplayer - clearly you do. I'm saying you dont enjoy that its a REQUIREMENT. It doesnt add anything to your experience.

Online is the future.

No one is forcing you to buy into it, but if you want to play D3, the reality is you need to be online. Blizzard have made people well aware of this fact.

All round the world, business models for software development (including gaming) is changing from being a product you own, to a service that gets provided. Thats how the company I work for, does business. If you take DSTV as an exampe; You cannot (legally) watch DSTV, without the equipment and the subscription, nor do you own any of the content provided by them. The same goes for D3.

It all comes down to what people get for this service. WoW as an example can also be played as a 'single player' game, but what heightens it is the interaction with other players. If Diablo 3 was a traditional offline/multiplayer game, I know many people would prefer to stay offline, but you know what? Because it's online only, me and my friends have had more fun.

Let me explain; Some of my friends are quite multiplayer shy. If D3 had offline gameplay, I highly doubt they would have played online. But, because of the bnet system, I've hooked up with work colleagues, online friends from my old WoW days as well as a very good friend I have not seen for many years. If D3 was just another Steam game, I highly doubt it would have added as much value as battle.net. Yes, Bnet might be a form of 'DRM', but Blizzards adds much more VALUE to this service (eg, did you know that the game updates as you play?) than any other system.

[Wyzak]

If D3 had offline gameplay, I highly doubt they would have played online. But, because of the bnet system, I've hooked up with work colleagues, online friends from my old WoW days as well as a very good friend I have not seen for many years. If D3 was just another Steam game, I highly doubt it would have added as much value as battle.net. Yes, Bnet might be a form of 'DRM', but Blizzards adds much more VALUE to this service (eg, did you know that the game updates as you play?) than any other system.

Thanks for your inputs Roosta.

The Steam friends system makes dropping in and out of a game just as easy as the battle.net system.

I haven't yet seen a game update whilst I was busy playing it in steam, but this is a very new feature and Rift also just added it in the latest patch. I am sure Steam will be offering the same service shortly.

IMO added offline as an option would not have detracted from the game, but would have added even more value. Then you could have chosen between playing offline when there are issues with the server, or when your friends are offline and playing online when the servers are stable and your friends are online. Being unable to play the game at all because server maintenance is in progress does not add any value.

If Blizzard had added offline probably half of the players would have been playing offline, so the servers would have handled the load much easier and there would have been a whole lot less rage than their is atm.

The reason I am so opposed to this type of DRM is because I have very little time to game and when I actually have time I expect the servers to be up and running, or if the servers aren't running I want to be able to play offline.

When you are rubber-banding all over the place or you lose progress because of a DC: Are you annoyed? Or do you think: Wow I am so glad Blizzard added all of these nice features. Now it's not just me offline but all of my friends as well!

[RoosTa]

IMO added offline as an option would not have detracted from the game, but would have added even more value. Then you could have chosen between playing offline when there are issues with the server, or when your friends are offline and playing online when the servers are stable and your friends are online. Being unable to play the game at all because server maintenance is in progress does not add any value.

If Blizzard had added offline probably half of the players would have been playing offline, so the servers would have handled the load much easier and there would have been a whole lot less rage than their is atm.Thats the problem, it would have actually segregated the community. I believe that most people would get bored after completing it on normal, because the incentive to play is lessened when playing on your own.

There is an old saying, the more the merrier. The more friends there are the better the experience.

Blizzard realised this in WoW, which is why they are pushing the whole online-only thing.


When you are rubber-banding all over the place or you lose progress because of a DC: Are you annoyed? Or do you think: Wow I am so glad Blizzard added all of these nice features. Now it's not just me offline but all of my friends as well!Yes it is annoying, but so is it when playing any online game. Don't you get annoyed when the BF3 servers go down or when your power cuts at home or when the international cables break?

Thats just life for you. It's annoying when you can't always get what you want.

Just to sum it up:
So far I've played 43 hours for a game that cost me R450.
I received the game last week Thursday. I normally get home from work at 7pm and play between 8-12pm.
(I warned the wife well in advanced :) )

Thurs = 4 hours
Friday = 6 hours
Saturday = 12 hours
Sunday (10am - 3pm [emergency maintenance] then from 8pm - 12pm) = 9 Hours
Monday = 4 Hours
Tuesday = 4 hours
Wed = 4 Hours

(I always go a bit over the top in the first week for AAA titles)

So, 4 hours downtime + 15mins last night. Which means that the service has been down for probably a total of 10% during 'normal' gaming hours. My 3 friends and I have yet to encounter serious lag that makes this game unplayable. We've completed it on normal and busy working our way through nightmare - mountain out of a mole-hill comes to mind. For a 24h online environment, these are mere hiccups.

Could Blizzard have created an offline/online game? Yes they very well could have what every single developer has done in the past, but I honestly believe it would not be the same experience. It would not have been the same game.

[Wyzak]

You make several good points Roosta.

But because there are lots of BF3 servers, if a couple go down its not a train smash. If the international cables go down I can still play my other games offline.

They could have offered the same online experience while allowing you to personally host the game on your machine. Remember when we say offline we don't really mean offline, we just mean that you are hosting the game yourself and you have 0ms latency.

With the same b.net running it would have been possible for friends to hop in and out of your "offline" game.

What I am trying to get at, is why couldn't blizzard offer the same experience whilst allowing you to host your own game? Then if the servers went down you would only lose the "value added" part, but you would still be able to enjoy the game.

[RoosTa]

But because there are lots of BF3 servers, if a couple go down its not a train smash. If the international cables go down I can still play my other games offline.

If the BF 3 authentication servers are down, no one can play regardless of how many local servers there are.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654624893374434/

Anyways, my point was that it does suck when these issue occur, but these are the nuances of online games. I've been playing online games since '98, so I guess my skin is much thicker to these nuances.


What I am trying to get at, is why couldn't blizzard offer the same experience whilst allowing you to host your own game? Then if the servers went down you would only lose the "value added" part, but you would still be able to enjoy the game. Again, that comes down to security and the way battle.net works, coupled with the "Value Added Services" such as AH and RMAH. Its much easier to hack a server that you can install locally and intercept all its network data sent to the "master" server.

It's also probably much easier (and cheaper) to maintain your own servers than to support an additional layer of 'client' servers.

[Wyzak]

It's also probably much easier (and cheaper) to maintain your own servers than to support an additional layer of 'client' servers.

I highly doubt that. Allowing the clients to host their own games would be considerably cheaper than hosting the games for them. A dedicated server app is then just a client hosting without the client joining himself.

[Jabberwocky]

Let see how you like always online when your lvl 60 hardcore demon-hunter rubber-bands into a mob.

[Glordit]

You are not forced to do anything, you are not forced to buy the game. If you want to play the game that's what is being offered to you. It is clearly stated on the box.


Because it was never sold as a single player game. It was marketed as an online game.
I received what was sold; An online game that I can mutli-play with my friends.

I would like to point out the Italicized/Bold text 2 concepts that where OBVIOUSLY over looked in this thread.

If you did'nt or don't like the always on connection requirements don't buy it.


The reason I am so opposed to this type of DRM is because I have very little time to game and when I actually have time I expect the servers to be up and running, or if the servers aren't running I want to be able to play offline.

Blame the timezone we live in? Maintenance is a massive part of keeping a server active and healthy, without it you'ed spend more time in the log in screen than in game.

[Wyzak]

If you did'nt or don't like the always on connection requirements don't buy it.
I didn't buy it solely because of the DRM.


Blame the timezone we live in? Maintenance is a massive part of keeping a server active and healthy, without it you'ed spend more time in the log in screen than in game.
We are in the same time zone as Europe and worst case 1 hour ahead when they have DST. Not sure what your point is? If there was no always-online DRM there would be no server maintenance.

[Ancalagon]

I would like to point out the Italicized/Bold text 2 concepts that where OBVIOUSLY over looked in this thread.

If you did'nt or don't like the always on connection requirements don't buy it.



Clearly you didnt read my post.

What is the benefit of making it forced online only? Not "oh well thats the way it is, I will bow down and accept the will of my masters", you should be asking WHY? What do I get out of it?

Remember, as a consumer, you can guide what products are made by choosing to buy or not buy something. So in other words, if you dont like the online only thing, but buy it because of brand loyalty, you are saying you will put up with it. So I'm asking you, why do you put up with it? Why do you like it?

RoosTa at least had a good reason for it, I still disagree but he has his reasons. Can you actually provide a reason why online only is a good thing, and not just say "because Blizzard says so", because thats pretty tired.

[Fivel]

Ancalagon, I don't think any of us have the real answer for your question. But, is this any different from many other products? A supplier/manufacturer provides a product that probably meets the needs of a high proportion of is target audience, and advertises it as such. While I agreed your point is specifically regarding the online play there are many other users who want other aspects of the game changed. Who should Blizzard listen to?

[Ancalagon]

So you dont have a real answer to the question, but you still argue in favour of online only? This is my point. Everybody says we live in a digital age, online is the future, get used to it etc, but few people can actually mention what POSITIVEs only only is going to bring to me. Only RoosTa has been able to come up with a few points.

Yet everybody is still saying its a good thing that online only is in the game. I would be fine if people said "I dont like the online only part, but I'm willing to put up with it because I like the game so much", or "I like the online part and here is why". But for you to say you like the online only part, but not give a reason for it, is insanity IMHO.

When you say it meets the needs of a high proportion of the target audience, but you cant mention real positives for the online only system, I question whether it really is meeting the needs of the target audience. Could they be better served by an optional online and LAN system? I would argue that yes, they could. It doesnt take anything away from the game, yet significantly adds to it for many people, including many people here in SA. Would you honestly rather have forced online only play instead of LAN play?

It definitely doesnt meet my needs, and judging from the amount of people bitching about the problems signing in, it doesnt meet their needs either. So why did everyone rush out and buy it?

EDIT: Does anyone disagree that the primary reason for the forced online thing is DRM?

[Wyzak]

When you say it meets the needs of a high proportion of the target audience, but you cant mention real positives for the online only system, I question whether it really is meeting the needs of the target audience. Could they be better served by an optional online and LAN system? I would argue that yes, they could. It doesnt take anything away from the game, yet significantly adds to it for many people, including many people here in SA. Would you honestly rather have forced online only play instead of LAN play?

Well said, LAN play would have resulted in me buying the game and definitely enjoying it more.

[Fivel]

So you dont have a real answer to the question, but you still argue in favour of online only? This is my point. Everybody says we live in a digital age, online is the future, get used to it etc, but few people can actually mention what POSITIVEs only only is going to bring to me. Only RoosTa has been able to come up with a few points.

Yet everybody is still saying its a good thing that online only is in the game. I would be fine if people said "I dont like the online only part, but I'm willing to put up with it because I like the game so much", or "I like the online part and here is why". But for you to say you like the online only part, but not give a reason for it, is insanity IMHO.

When you say it meets the needs of a high proportion of the target audience, but you cant mention real positives for the online only system, I question whether it really is meeting the needs of the target audience. Could they be better served by an optional online and LAN system? I would argue that yes, they could. It doesnt take anything away from the game, yet significantly adds to it for many people, including many people here in SA. Would you honestly rather have forced online only play instead of LAN play?

It definitely doesnt meet my needs, and judging from the amount of people bitching about the problems signing in, it doesnt meet their needs either. So why did everyone rush out and buy it?

EDIT: Does anyone disagree that the primary reason for the forced online thing is DRM?

I dont have the online issues you/others have i concede that i am less emotive about this all and less hassled, the game works for me!!! But, while DRM maybe one of the reasons, Blizzard may have any other reasons for the online portion that they may not be willing to share for whatever reason.

The problem we have in debating this point is that we are using anecdotal evidence. Is an earlier post someone hinted that the forums are abuzz with many unhappy Diablo 3 players due to the online component. Those that are happy generally don't say anything, so how any of the millions of players are unhappy? If it is only 10% (my thumb suck) do you really think Blizzard will remove it?

[bradbear117]

I'm not a fan of the idea of having to be online to play something single player. At this stage it doesn't make sense to me but we'll probably get used to it.

[Ancalagon]

I am hassled because I am passionate about consumer rights and DRM.

I know it sounds dramatic, but the reality is, if we sit here and do nothing, and continue to buy games like D3, DRM will get worse and worse. Although, I'm not sure how much worse it can get, honestly.

Publishers are taking away more and more of our rights as consumers, and giving us less and less, in the name of profits. I'm not prepared to accept that. So I'm voting with my wallet, and I want to make other people think about these issues, so that maybe they will vote with their wallets too, and regain our rights.

Once upon a time, you used to be able to buy a game, do whatever you wanted with it, and then sell it when you were done. Now you can play it when they allow you to, and you cant sell it. The publishers are wanting to change to a service based model instead of a product model because its more profitable to them, but have you asked yourselves, what do we get out of it? I'm sorry, call me selfish, but I'd only go for a service based model if I thought it was worth it. Obviously, I see no benefit out of the current gaming model.

[Wyzak]

I am hassled because I am passionate about consumer rights and DRM.
Hear hear!


I know it sounds dramatic, but the reality is, if we sit here and do nothing, and continue to buy games like D3, DRM will get worse and worse. Although, I'm not sure how much worse it can get, honestly.
To answer your question Sony last week patented in-game ad-breaks. So play play play, pause, watch ad, unpause, play play play...

[z00bear]

I am hassled because I am passionate about consumer rights and DRM.....
I could'nt agree more. I think too many people are making apologies for this game because of what it is.

[Fivel]

I am hassled because I am passionate about consumer rights and DRM.

I know it sounds dramatic, but the reality is, if we sit here and do nothing, and continue to buy games like D3, DRM will get worse and worse. Although, I'm not sure how much worse it can get, honestly.

Publishers are taking away more and more of our rights as consumers, and giving us less and less, in the name of profits. I'm not prepared to accept that. So I'm voting with my wallet, and I want to make other people think about these issues, so that maybe they will vote with their wallets too, and regain our rights.

Once upon a time, you used to be able to buy a game, do whatever you wanted with it, and then sell it when you were done. Now you can play it when they allow you to, and you cant sell it. The publishers are wanting to change to a service based model instead of a product model because its more profitable to them, but have you asked yourselves, what do we get out of it? I'm sorry, call me selfish, but I'd only go for a service based model if I thought it was worth it. Obviously, I see no benefit out of the current gaming model.

I hear you, but let's also be passionate about calling out those who cause us to have to deal with DRM, the problem cannot be solved by the publishers/developers only.

[Wyzak]

I hear you, but let's also be passionate about calling out those who cause us to have to deal with DRM, the problem cannot be solved by the publishers/developers only.

The developers introduced DRM not the pirates. Piracy is their problem and they've now gone and made it our problem. That's not on in my books.

[Fivel]

The developers introduced DRM not the pirates. Piracy is their problem and they've now gone and made it our problem. That's not on in my books.

Piracy is all our problem, whether you like it or not.

[Wyzak]

Piracy is all our problem, whether you like it or not.

When an anti-piracy method is affecting the game for people who legitimately bought it and causing other people not to buy the game, there is obviously something wrong with it!

[Fivel]

When an anti-piracy method is affecting the game for people who legitimately bought it and causing other people not to buy the game, there is obviously something wrong with it!

We sit with the same problem when you watch a purchased DVD, I'm not the pirate but I am affected by the adverts/warnings etc.

I agree that this is not the cure all for piracy, in fact as you point out it negatively affects potential sales.

My point is that if we sit back and keep pointing at the publishers etc to solve the problem and our selves/mates continue pirating and we say/do nothing the problem will never be solved. We all have a vested interest in reducing piracy.

[Wyzak]

We sit with the same problem when you watch a purchased DVD, I'm not the pirate but I am affected by the adverts/warnings etc.
The advertisements on purchased DVDs aren't exactly the same because they don't detract from the movie itself. You just zoom past them, or get your snacks in order while they are playing and then enjoy the movie. - An accurate comparison to this would be requiring an online login and then allowing offline play.

Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be that you buy the disk but in reality it's only a token which allows you to stream the movie down from their website. And then their website is unavailable or is slow so your movie stutters.

[Wyzak]

Oh also let's not forget that you aren't ever allowed to sell the "movie" that you bought, even when you've watched it enough times that you can repeat all the lines. You also can't return it to the store if you are not happy with it.

[Fivel]

Agree, your examples are better than my DVD one, but you don't comment on whether this is all our problem to solve?

[Ancalagon]

By that logic, Toyota should introduce a system where you have to sign in to a server to start your car. Car theft is a huge problem, and people who steal cars dont have to buy cars from Toyota. So Toyota then makes it our problem by making you insert an anal probe that verifies your identity with their servers before starting the car. Stopped in the Karoo? sorry for you!

Thats really the same logic. And you know what this thinking is called - externalizing. read up on it. Businesses externalize risks to them. All businesses suffer the risk of theft, but only the content industry is arrogant enough to make the risk of theft your problem.

Sorry content companies, you will not externalize your risk onto me. I will not cover you because of piracy. You must sort it out yourselves, or accept the risk.

And heck, what exactly have their anti piracy efforts accomplished? Can you name me a game that cannot be pirated? Are you willing to bet what the results of a google search for Diablo 3 torrent will be?

[Fivel]

We are missing each other by the proverbial mile, my point simply put, if we do not sort out both sides of the problem, I would call it 'moral decay' by both business and users this will not go away. If you do not see yourself as part of solving the problem then you are part of the problem.

You are most welcome to use outrageous examples to support your point of view ;)

[Ancalagon]

But why is piracy MY problem? It isnt! Anymore than car theft, or CD theft, is my problem.

Whatever hurts a company's bottom line is for the company to deal with, not me. If they choose to do so in a manner that negatively affects the consumer, then I will boycott them, and will attempt to persuade others to do so too.

[Fivel]

But why is piracy MY problem? It isnt! Anymore than car theft, or CD theft, is my problem.

Simply put, because it affects you.....our entire conversation is evidence of that.


Whatever hurts a company's bottom line is for the company to deal with, not me. If they choose to do so in a manner that negatively affects the consumer, then I will boycott them, and will attempt to persuade others to do so too.

I agree that it shouldn't, but it is also unrealistic to expect it not to. For example, if a game costs X, there is no doubt in my mind that publishers up the price to deal with piracy, just as retailers build a certain part of their markup in as shrinkage.

[Ancalagon]

Simply put, because it affects you.....our entire conversation is evidence of that.


It only affects me because the publisher wants to make it my problem!

I dont accept that. Toyota doesnt make car theft my problem. I dont have to sign in to read books on my kindle. Why do we make exceptions for game publishers?

If publishers didnt use DRM - which doesnt work anyway - it would not affect me at all.


I agree that it shouldn't, but it is also unrealistic to expect it not to. For example, if a game costs X, there is no doubt in my mind that publishers up the price to deal with piracy, just as retailers build a certain part of their markup in as shrinkage.

Not really. Why is it unrealistic?

Yes companies pass costs onto the consumer, thats to be expected. Higher minimum wage -> higher prices for goods. Same with piracy - if they are suffering losses due to piracy, more than likely they try to recoup that from sales. No problem with that...

...Except for a few things.

One, no one can define losses due to piracy accurately. Publishers grossly overestimate losses to piracy, because they always assume anyone who pirates a game would normally have bought it. Obviously, a Russian living on the breadline is not going to buy your game, if he cant pirate it. He will just not play it at all. So there is no lost sale there, there was never a sale in the first place. One game company, I cant remember which, said that for every 1000 cases of piracy, they stopped, they got something like 5 new sales. Think about that. Now tell me "losses due to piracy" are anywhere near as big as claimed?

The second thing is that while I could accept a little extra money on top, I absolutely do not accept DRM. DRM is a reduction of my rights. A little extra on top is pretty standard and in no way affects my rights. I can earn more money, but its incredibly difficult to take back a right once you have given it away.

And there is nothing about piracy that justifies DRM. Nothing. As we know, DRM does not solve piracy.

The real problem is that the industry itself is in trouble, and they are resorting to all sorts of schemes to save themselves. Games cost $60 years ago, they still cost $60 today. When you factor in inflation, that means that the price of games, in real terms, has dropped. But then when you factor in how expensive it has got, in terms of the number of staff that work on a game, you see the real problem. Costs have risen dramatically, competition is fiercer than ever, and the price is static or decreasing. Hence DLC - its usually the only thing that makes money. The actual game probably only breaks even if sales are like 2 million units and above.

Enter DRM. They feel they are losing money to piracy (although they arent losing nearly as much as they think), and they know they cant bump the price to cover piracy. Consumers would just not go for it. So some snake oil salesmen have convinced the aging publisher execs, who are probably pushing 60 by this stage, and understand business but not the business of games, that DRM is a necessity. Nevermind the embarrassing factoid that DRM is ineffectual. Its the only way they think they can externalize the "cost" of piracy onto the consumer.

[Wyzak]

Let's not forget that increasing the price to combat piracy, will result in more pirated copies and to another increase in price and more piracy...

[Ancalagon]

Thats true, they probably realize that, which is another reason why they are reluctant to do so, except in the case of Diablo 3 and SC2. Which got pirated anyway...

[RoosTa]

Guys, please lets not turn this into a yet another thread about piracy.

I think the question is (that has been asked);
Should games be a service or should games remain as a product?

So lets summarise it
Games as an online service:

Content delivery service (Steam):
Positives:

Can be taken offline (briefly)
Has community (profiles, chat etc)
Achievements
No lag in singleplayer
Reduced cheats / exploits
Reduced piracy - cracks still available
CD-Keys are kept within a DB and locked to account
Games kept up to date (great version control)
Can download game client any time
Can broken fix game client
DLC

Negatives:

Requires online authentication
Server dependency
Updates prevent game time
Boxed edition usually require patch before play
Community not integrated into game play (Personally I've had a far better experience with Bnet 2.0 games than with Steam games/BattleLog)
Hacking and exploits
Lag in multiplayer
Cannot resell


Client MMO-like games which require login (Including D3)
Positives:

Has great community (profiles, chat etc)
Achievements
Very little cheat / exploits
Very little piracy
CD-Keys are kept within a DB and locked to account
Games kept up to date (both client and server side - eg hotfix)
Value added services (RM Auction House)
Can download client anytime
Can fix broken game client

Negatives:

Requires Internet
Server dependency
Lag in singleplayer
Lag in multiplayer
Cannot resell


Games as a product:

Good old singleplayer/multiplayer product
Positives:

You can play when you want
Update when you want to
No lag in singleplayer
Resell

Negatives:

Piracy (very easy to crack)
Buyer still has troubles with anti-piracy measures (CD-Keys, CD-Checks etc)
DVD/CD's can be scratched/lost
Lots of cheats and exploits
No community for singleplayer
Segregated community for multiplayer
Lag in multiplayer
Version control managed by user
Reinstall required if game client is corrupted



Full games with online-only DRM (Ubisoft)
Positives:

Version control managed by publisher
No lag in singleplayer
Some community features

Negatives:

Requires Internet
Lag in multiplayer
Piracy still a problem with cracks
Server dependency
Cheats and exploits (making achievements meaningless)
Cannot resell
No community (or community features usually poor)
Reinstall required if game client is corrupted

[RoosTa]

(Sorry for double post, but I would like to keep the summary clean)

My conclusion is that services become far more complex. So in order to outweigh the negatives, a company has to provide additional VAS. It's the reason why more people are against the DRM of Ubisoft, than that of Blizzard. (it benefits the publishers and not the consumers)

Games as a product, were far simpler, but then as a company you cannot provide VAS.

As a consumer, one needs to weigh these up; No one is forced to buy into a product or a service, that's the beauty of this free market. You as a consumer need to decide whether the product or service is worth the money.

Personally, I've had very little problems with using an online service such as EVE, WoW, BF3 and now D3. I know its crucial that my internet needs to be top-notch - same goes for every requirement listed on the box. I personally believe online is the way forward.

[Fivel]

Thanks Roosta, great summary, thanks Ancalagon for a very civil debate.

[Ancalagon]

@RoosTa

I would remove piracy from all of those possibilities mentioned above, because its a publisher problem, not a client problem. (my opinion).

Also D3 does not suffer "very little piracy", it suffers the same piracy as all others. So no gain there.

re: single player community. In game single player community is kinda stretching the definition of single player a bit. Perhaps D3 has no single player at all, only coop multiplayer?

Updates prevent game time should be a negative for mmo-like games too then.

Cheats and exploits are only an issue for multiplayer games, but they even happen in BF3. If they happen in BF3, I'm sure someone will find a way to exploit D3. Its only a matter of time.

Personally I dont find CDs/DVDs bothersome.

@Fivel

Thanks, same to you.

[RoosTa]

I would remove piracy from all of those possibilities mentioned above, because its a publisher problem, not a client problem. (my opinion).Clearly it is a problem and it affects everyone.


Also D3 does not suffer "very little piracy", it suffers the same piracy as all others. So no gain there..Services (Such as MMO's) contain all their original IP on the servers and not the client thats installed on your PC. So while you might be able to play some 'form' of Diablo 3 / WoW on some hacked and buggy server, it will not be the real deal.

I can promise you this; People (if any) playing on emulated servers are having a much harder time than those on BN. I'd say, mission accomplished.



@RoosTa
Updates prevent game time should be a negative for mmo-like games too then.

Did know that WoW/D3 patches your client while you play and that many patches are actually server side which hardly affects the clients?

[Wyzak]

I'm sorry but it's just not as black and white as you try to make it out in your comparison Roosta.

Just looking at Steam's cons for example:

Negatives:
Requires online authentication
Server dependency
Updates prevent game time
Boxed edition usually require patch before play
Community not integrated into game play (Personally I've had a far better experience with Bnet 2.0 games than with Steam games/BattleLog)
Hacking and exploits
Lag in multiplayer
Cannot resell
Server dependancy only when in online mode. When in online mode only when playing on an externally hosted server. There are thousands of servers to choose from.
Updates prevent game time - Only when updating the game that you are currently playing and only until steam adds the functionality which will be soon.
There is absolutely no reason - zero - nil - nada why the community can not be integrated into game play in exactly the same manner as Bnet 2.0. The community is already vastly integrated in most of the new Steam games.
Hacking and exploits is really of no concern because those who get caught loss their Steam accounts and not just the single game which they were hacking on.
Lag in multiplayer - FAR too big a topic to list as a single con. Latency when playing on LAN < 5ms. Latency to local servers is 20-50ms and very few people will have any problems with that. Latency to international servers same as D3's.

[Wyzak]

Did know that WoW/D3 patches your client while you play and that many patches are actually server side which hardly affects the clients?

I don't care about that because my PC is online all of the time, and I don't have that much time to actually play. It will however negatively affect your already bad latency if it downloads while you are playing. It will also slow down your HDD which will cause you to lose fps.


Clearly it is a problem and it affects everyone.
I'm sorry but no it doesn't. If you and your friends all bought the game you should be able to enjoy it without any restrictions. It is not correct that other people can enjoy all of the games aspects without having paid for it. But if you have paid for it you should not have to experience ANY restrictions.

[Glordit]

Clearly you didnt read my post.

What is the benefit of making it forced online only? Not "oh well thats the way it is, I will bow down and accept the will of my masters", you should be asking WHY? What do I get out of it?

Remember, as a consumer, you can guide what products are made by choosing to buy or not buy something. So in other words, if you dont like the online only thing, but buy it because of brand loyalty, you are saying you will put up with it. So I'm asking you, why do you put up with it? Why do you like it?

RoosTa at least had a good reason for it, I still disagree but he has his reasons. Can you actually provide a reason why online only is a good thing, and not just say "because Blizzard says so", because thats pretty tired.

I get nothing out of it I just wanted a game to play.

I never said I like it, nor did I Say I don't, and Because I wanted the game I bought it, everything else I couldn't care less about.

[Wyzak]

I get nothing out of it I just wanted a game to play.

I never said I like it, nor did I Say I don't, and Because I wanted the game I bought it, everything else I couldn't care less about.

Let me ask you this. If there were 2 copies of the game. One with online-only and one with offline-and-online. Would you have bought the online-only version because you love online-only so much?

If you would have bought the offline-and-online version like me, Ancalagon and countless others then please stop defending online-only. DRM that affects paying customers is indefensible.

[Ancalagon]

Clearly it is a problem and it affects everyone.


Fivel and I were debating this point above. I dont believe it is our problem, anymore than the risk of theft which a bottle store faces is my problem. That the publishers make you believe it is your problem is an example of externalization - the publishers have led you to believe that piracy is your problem, so you must deal with the consequences (ie DRM).

But this is not true elsewhere in business. The only exception is that businesses will pass costs onto their consumers, which is fine. The bottle store might have an insurance policy, and the markup on its liquor will cover that, which you end up paying for. Thats fine.

But DRM? No, sorry, thats something else entirely, and I dont accept that I, as a paying customer, should be the one to deal with it. I dont mind non intrusive DRM, but stuff like D3 is way past what I'm willing to accept.

Another example of externalization is the campaign which the publishers have made to turn copyright violations into criminal, instead of civil, crimes. Thus, the US DOJ goes after filesharers, instead of the publishers just suing them instead. They get the US government to do their work for them - basically, they pass the cost onto the US government.

The modern publishing and content industry is notoriously bad at updating their business models, but I have to hand it to them, they are great at getting other people to do their work for them. And getting paying customers to accept anal probes in exchange for handing over money.

[Glordit]

I get nothing out of it I just wanted a game to play.

I never said I like it, nor did I Say I don't, and Because I wanted the game I bought it, everything else I couldn't care less about.

Let me ask you this. If there were 2 copies of the game. One with online-only and one with offline-and-online. Would you have bought the online-only version because you love online-only so much?

If you would have bought the offline-and-online version like me, Ancalagon and countless others then please stop defending online-only. DRM that affects paying customers is indefensible.
Im not defending anything.

You knew D3 had a always online DRM model, before buying right?

To answer your question. I Would have bought the one that gives me the ability to play online, with friends and any one else.

[Ancalagon]

You knew D3 had a always online DRM model, before buying right?

So you never thought to ask yourself whether you agree with always online DRM?

[Wyzak]

Im not defending anything.

You knew D3 had a always online DRM model, before buying right?

Yes I knew it and I didn't buy D3 because of it.

I'm not a lemming or a sheep.

[Glordit]

You knew D3 had a always online DRM model, before buying right?

So you never thought to ask yourself whether you agree with always online DRM?

Honnestly dont care about the DRM. I care about the game.

[Wyzak]

Honnestly dont care about the DRM. I care about the game.

If you care about the game you should know how much better it would have been if you were able to play with 0ms latency (SP or when hosting MP) and with 20-50ms latency (MP within SA).

[RoosTa]

If you would have bought the offline-and-online version like me, Ancalagon and countless others then please stop defending online-only. DRM that affects paying customers is indefensible. So far you have not provided any other advantages for offline-only, other than the fact its exempt of "DRM".

I find your views quite selfish, while some people actually want to build up and be part of a community, you'd rather let us live in the past. Maybe not all games need to be online-only, but there are many games that do benefit. There is a place for it and no one is forcing you to buy those games.


Fivel and I were debating this point above. I dont believe it is our problem, anymore than the risk of theft which a bottle store faces is my problem. That the publishers make you believe it is your problem is an example of externalization - the publishers have led you to believe that piracy is your problem, so you must deal with the consequences (ie DRM).Now this is going completely off topic and I'm rather reluctant to give my input, but I feel I need to answer this;

Crime is our problem. It's why we have insurance, It's why we have high walls with electric fences, its why we have locks on our doors. We have people allocated to deal with the problem (aka police), but in the end they can't stop ALL the crime in the world and it is our duty to educate your kids as to why crime is bad and educate ourselves to not become a victim.

There is a saying from Ronin: You are either part of the problem, part of the solution or part of the landscape.
You can stand on your little pedestal and bitch about DRM all day long, but unless the problem is solved, it will remain. Again, no one is being forced to buy these products.

I'm a firm believer that online only enhances our gaming experience and I don't think anyone has given a good reason why online-only is not the future (other than donning tinfoil hats and harping on about how bad "DRM" is). So therefor its clear your issues lie with Uncle Sam and how they plan to dominate the world using the information they collected about you and not with what services get provided for the money paid.

[Wyzak]

I care about the Diablo franchise that's why I hate what happened to me last night and it is directly because of DRM.


I had really bad lag last night. Was playing on an unshaped account like I do most of the time and the game just kept on feeling stuttery the whole time. I would type a chat message to the party and they would respond to it, but I couldn't see my own message in the chat. I would also walk past an area just to have gold appear out of thin air next to me. We had difficulty zoning into the boss fights several times when it kept on saying one of your party members had already started the encounter when all of us were still standing outside.

I only had an hour and a half to play and it was quite annoying for that whole time.

[Wyzak]

So far you have not provided any other advantages for offline-only, other than the fact its exempt of "DRM".

I find your views quite selfish, while some people actually want to build up and be part of a community, you'd rather let us live in the past. Maybe not all games need to be online-only, but there are many games that do benefit. There is a place for it and no one is forcing you to buy those games.

No Roosta, I don't want to live in the past. I enjoy some of the features of the new b.net. However you have failed to explain why DRM is required to form a nice gaming community? What difference does it make if I'm hosting the game myself or if they host it on their servers? They could offer the EXACT same experience while allowing me to host my own game.

The DRM is inconveniencing people who legitimately bought the game. There is no excuse for that.

[Glordit]

I care about the Diablo franchise that's why I hate what happened to me last night and it is directly because of DRM.


I had really bad lag last night. Was playing on an unshaped account like I do most of the time and the game just kept on feeling stuttery the whole time. I would type a chat message to the party and they would respond to it, but I couldn't see my own message in the chat. I would also walk past an area just to have gold appear out of thin air next to me. We had difficulty zoning into the boss fights several times when it kept on saying one of your party members had already started the encounter when all of us were still standing outside.

I only had an hour and a half to play and it was quite annoying for that whole time.

Blame the isp, quality of the line, exchange connecting to? even if we had 40mbs DSL we would still get lag due to those reasons and have a ping of 100+ due to the distance the data must travel and back.

[Wyzak]

I'm a firm believer that online only enhances our gaming experience and I don't think anyone has given a good reason why online-only is not the future (other than donning tinfoil hats and harping on about how bad "DRM" is). So therefor its clear your issues lie with Uncle Sam and how they plan to dominate the world using the information they collected about you and not with what services get provided for the money paid.

You live in a fairy-tale land if you don't realize that they could have offered the exact same experience to you without the ridiculous DRM. Blizzard's PR team really got you good if you actually believe that the DRM is necessary to provide the experience that you are enjoying.

Why are you accepting all of the negatives associated with DRM when you legitimately bought the game?

[Wyzak]

Blame the isp, quality of the line, exchange connecting to? even if we had 40mbs DSL we would still get lag due to those reasons and have a ping of 100+ due to the distance the data must travel and back.

I wasn't the only one experiencing the lag. I am well aware of the constraints of modern day communication and it is one of the reasons why I am so opposed to this type of DRM. I enjoy gaming, and I would like to continue doing so in the future. The DRM experience is a bad apple that has the possibility of ruining the future of gaming.

[StaggerLee]

Perhaps I can offer an intermediate viewpoint. I haven't followed every single post on this thread, so if this has been said before, I apologise.

I don't have a problem with the always-online component of any game per se (I don't have a problem with games like Battlefield 3 which require a persistent internet connection to play single- or multiplayer), however, I have a problem with the fact that we are not provided with the same experience as other players because of Blizzard's policies regarding their server distribution.

Blizzard refuse to provide servers anywhere outside their three main locales (USA, Europe and Asia). As a result of the way that the always-online component has been implemented, anyone living far enough from the servers will have inherent problems with the lag. This has resulted in massive latencies during peak times of day, and even in the best-case scenario, we can expect latencies of around 200ms, which can cause problems at higher difficulties.

If Blizzard want to force online only mode onto us, then they need to provide us with the facilities to enjoy the gaming experience just as much as those people in the USA, Europe and Asia do. The Australians have the same problem. It makes no sense to argue that we are insisting on an outdated system, simply because we want to experience the game as it should be experienced. EA allows local service providers to host servers, so why is it impossible for Blizzard to do the same?

I don't think this implies that I want to live in a world where online-only isn't the future, I am all to happy to live in that world as long as I have a (fairly) reliable internet connection. It only implies that when I live in that world, that I get what I pay for, and unplayable, sub-standard ping is not what I paid for.

[Glordit]

Blame the isp, quality of the line, exchange connecting to? even if we had 40mbs DSL we would still get lag due to those reasons and have a ping of 100+ due to the distance the data must travel and back.

I wasn't the only one experiencing the lag. I am well aware of the constraints of modern day communication and it is one of the reasons why I am so opposed to this type of DRM. I enjoy gaming, and I would like to continue doing so in the future. The DRM experience is a bad apple that has the possibility of ruining the future of gaming.

The problem is this.
The game was made for a European, Amerian and Asian market, bliz does not care about countries with bandwith constraints. Even if we never got the game in S.A bliz would have still made millions of sales, as prophet *edited* said in the start of the thread. Its going to happen and, we cant change it. Devs do what they need to, to keep their product safe and profitible.

[StaggerLee]

The problem is this.
The game was made for a European, Amerian and Asian market, bliz does not care about countries with bandwith constraints. Even if we never got the game in S.A bliz would have still made millions of sales, as prophet *edited* said in the start of the thread. Its going to happen and, we cant change it. Devs do what they need to, to keep their product safe and profitible.

I'm not sure how what you are saying is a defense of Blizzard's position. They should care about their paying customers whether they are in the USA, South Africa or anywhere where there is decent infrastructure to support the game. It's ridiculous to say the service provider/product manufacturer is doing what it must to protect its own interests - it's also in their interests to protect our interests! We are paying customers and they distribute the game here and expect us to pay a premium price for it -the same price they pay in Europe. Sales is not about what only works for the salesman - that notion is preposterous. We have the infrastructure here to support local servers and a persistent connection to said servers, so why can't they allow our local internet service providers to host servers?

[RoosTa]

No Roosta, I don't want to live in the past. I enjoy some of the features of the new b.net. However you have failed to explain why DRM is required to form a nice gaming community? What difference does it make if I'm hosting the game myself or if they host it on their servers? They could offer the EXACT same experience while allowing me to host my own gameYou are so fixated on the "DRM" part that you keep missing the "ONLINE" part. No point in discussing this further with you.

[Wyzak]

You are so fixated on the "DRM" part that you keep missing the "ONLINE" part. No point in discussing this further with you.

Thanks, I'll take that then that you aren't able to explain why Blizzard needs to host the actual game servers to create the wonderful online community.

[Just1ce]

The way I see it, people are trying to combat piracy. However, they are failing epically. This will force legitimate buyers to turn to piracy with their draconic DRM.

[Fivel]

The way I see it, people are trying to combat piracy. However, they are failing epically. This will force legitimate buyers to turn to piracy with their draconic DRM.

No one is forced to do anything, you choose to do it!

[RoosTa]

Thanks, I'll take that then that you aren't able to explain why Blizzard needs to host the actual game servers to create the wonderful online community.No, it seems to me that you are unable to comprehend that an online community requires a login/password (Or DRM as you keep referring to it).

[Wyzak]

No, it seems to me that you are unable to comprehend that an online community requires a login/password (Or DRM as you keep referring to it).

Newsflash: An online community can require a login/password and not have draconian DRM.

[Glordit]

The way I see it, people are trying to combat piracy. However, they are failing epically. This will force legitimate buyers to turn to piracy with their draconic DRM.

No one is forced to do anything, you choose to do it!

OMFG what I have been saying all along. . .