Diablo III will be always-online, but not because of piracy: Blizzard explains

[Prometheus]

I don't see the problem in being connected to play anymore.
Everyone is connected most of the time while gaming anyway.
And if it keeps the cheaters and gold-sellers out of the game im all for it!

It surprises me how people can still think that. Less than 10% of potential gamers in this country have some form of always available internet connection. Vodacom has helped perpetuate this problem with their "we have 10 million broadband customers". What counts as a "broadband" customer? Anybody who logged onto their network from a cellphone in the last 6 months. Then we have people like Jannie who claim that those are ALL logged on at the same time.

Not even considering real world standards the amount of people in this country who has what can pass as an always on internet connection from all providers would actually number less than 1 million.

 

[RoosTa]

Diablo 2 didn't require a dedicated graphics card, so why aren't people raging over requiring a graphics card for D3?

 

[afsrav]

This is all great and so, and I understand Blizzard's viewpoint. Starcraft II was very successfull and all, but what about the people that does not have broadband and only have a slow wireless connection to the internet. How will it affect them?

 

[will1023631]

Diablo 2 didn't require a dedicated graphics card, so why aren't people raging over requiring a graphics card for D3?

Hmmmm I doubt that is an issue. Most people have a dedicated GFX card. And I doubt they really care whether people have internet connections or not. In today's market it's all about catering for the masses. And unfortunately in a world with more than 6 billion people it's not that hard to hit your target market.

I mean sure there are countries out there that have crap internet connections, but if we look at the rest of the first world (the bit that game developers target since they have money) then the rest of us (like SA, which is still largely a 3rd world country thanks to our high unemployment and poverty levels) tend to suffer. As long as people buy in and don't boycott it en masse they'll still reach their goals and not give a swazz about things (except for the occasional few that eventually do).

We also have to take into account that the next step in the gaming evolution is "social gaming". With an always online system you can more easily share your experiences with your fellow peers and basically create a "virtual village". Sure this is the realm of MMO's but looking at the latest trends one can see that games are more focused on MP. Again due to majority demand. Games with a decent MP system draws a vast number of people, even if it has a lousy story etc.

One can also foresee a system where the actions of your peers can influence the flow of your game, kinda like Guild Wars 2 is planning on doing in the long run. This will also extend the longevity to the games and therefore translating into larger profit margins for the companies, but with company lie Blizzard I doubt larger profit margins will be an issue since that just means they can bigger gaps between releases to release quality titles to the masses.

Either way whether they have the always on internet or not, someone will make a patch available to allow you to play offline. This might mean that the rest of your peers don't see your progress, but that is all up to those that get the game.
But I think I'm just going in circles now, but that is my perspective on this whole always online idea.

 

[RoosTa]

Hmmmm I doubt that is an issue. Most people have a dedicated GFX card. And I doubt they really care whether people have internet connections or not. In today's market it's all about catering for the masses. And unfortunately in a world with more than 6 billion people it's not that hard to hit your target market.

I mean sure there are countries out there that have crap internet connections, but if we look at the rest of the first world (the bit that game developers target since they have money) then the rest of us (like SA, which is still largely a 3rd world country thanks to our high unemployment and poverty levels) tend to suffer. As long as people buy in and don't boycott it en masse they'll still reach their goals and not give a swazz about things (except for the occasional few that eventually do).

We also have to take into account that the next step in the gaming evolution is "social gaming". With an always online system you can more easily share your experiences with your fellow peers and basically create a "virtual village". Sure this is the realm of MMO's but looking at the latest trends one can see that games are more focused on MP. Again due to majority demand. Games with a decent MP system draws a vast number of people, even if it has a lousy story etc.

One can also foresee a system where the actions of your peers can influence the flow of your game, kinda like Guild Wars 2 is planning on doing in the long run. This will also extend the longevity to the games and therefore translating into larger profit margins for the companies, but with company lie Blizzard I doubt larger profit margins will be an issue since that just means they can bigger gaps between releases to release quality titles to the masses.

Either way whether they have the always on internet or not, someone will make a patch available to allow you to play offline. This might mean that the rest of your peers don't see your progress, but that is all up to those that get the game.
But I think I'm just going in circles now, but that is my perspective on this whole always online idea.

Well, my point is that things have to move forward and the internet is the direction everyone is moving towards. At some point there used to be lots of people whinging that they required a 3D card to play games. Then those same people whinged about needing a pixel shader.

Some people just need to realise that the world is not going to stand still for them.

 

[Voicy]

It's very debatable.

On the one hand you ask yourself whether it is reasonable to accept that someone who is equipped to play Diablo3 will also have an internet connection ... but on the other, making assumptions which forces the user into a corner is also not the way to win over their love.

Unfortunately since they decided to make real money part of this game, I would prefer an always-on verifier to ensure nobody hacks it in its moer in and then sells exploited gear for real $.

I don't know why I'm saying any of this because I'm as likely to get Diablo 3 as I am to get aids from a toilet seat.

 

[Avatar]

I don't know why I'm saying any of this because I'm as likely to get Diablo 3 as I am to get aids from a toilet seat.

Why's that? I'm sure it's going to be a brilliant game, even if you're not a fan of the genre, per se.

 

[Dragonic]

“Our focus is not on preventing piracy, but rather on creating an online experience that’s so compelling for people that they aren’t thinking about pirating the game because they want to be part of this community and they see value in having this community, almost as if this vibrant community is a bullet point you would put on the back of the box as a feature,”

Nou soe praat 'n bek.

 

[TheRealisation]

If people are going to pirate it anyway then why don't they just include lan support?

 

[Voicy]

Why's that? I'm sure it's going to be a brilliant game, even if you're not a fan of the genre, per se.

It's my favourite genre by a mile. However, I must shamefully admit that I never played D1 or D2. Having said that, I have no doubt that it will be a brilliant game based on its features etc. As with StarCraft 2, I am very glad for the fanbase that high calibre sequels came out - even though I have no intention of playing them.

As for the real money aspect of D3 - it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Being able to sell looted items for real cash on the auction house is a recipe for loot ninjas. Think about it ... you're questing with your buddies and a sword drops that's worth R2000 on the auction house. Just how much is your friendship worth to pass on the item if you're not going to use it for your own character? How about if the item incredibly rare and was worth R20k? Where do you decide what is good sportsmanship and what is just foolish to not be greedy over?

I know you can choose pretend-money only, so take my post with a pinch of salt.

 

[will1023631]

It's very debatable.

On the one hand you ask yourself whether it is reasonable to accept that someone who is equipped to play Diablo3 will also have an internet connection ... but on the other, making assumptions which forces the user into a corner is also not the way to win over their love.

Unfortunately since they decided to make real money part of this game, I would prefer an always-on verifier to ensure nobody hacks it in its moer in and then sells exploited gear for real $.

I don't know why I'm saying any of this because I'm as likely to get Diablo 3 as I am to get aids from a toilet seat.

Also remember they have to run on assumptions. They only have the bigger picture. They don't have the time nor the funds to accomodate for every single person. They have accepted that they aren't going to make everyone happy. The final choice of getting the product lies with the customer.

Unfortunately the system won't be that fullproof unless the Devs spend time to make sure all exploits are patched before they are severely exploited. But I think that is part of the reason they took so long is make sure that their system is mostly exploit proof.

Plus AIDS from a toilet seat? You're more likely to get syphilis or gonorrhea from a public toilet seat

If people are going to pirate it anyway then why don't they just include lan support?

And I doubt that will stop piracy. It's not about the Lan support. As I and many others have been saying is that always online gaming is the way forward. Piracy is not the issue, it's ability to interact with our peers. In the age of Facebook and Twitter, we should embrace always online gaming as this is going to be our new reality, whether we like it or not.

Unfortunately South African legislation still has a long distance to go to get Telkom off their throne and on the level of other ISP's (or the other way around) but for now we can only wait. But South African ISP's are chipping in to get a decent fibre optic backbone going.

 

[Voicy]

Plus AIDS from a toilet seat? You're more likely to get syphilis or gonorrhea from a public toilet seat

I was emphasising the unlikelihood tending towards impossibility. But yeah, I get what you mean in your points above.

 

[Avatar]

It's my favourite genre by a mile. <snip> even though I have no intention of playing them.

Now that just does not compute!

 

[Prometheus]

Well, my point is that things have to move forward and the internet is the direction everyone is moving towards. At some point there used to be lots of people whinging that they required a 3D card to play games. Then those same people whinged about needing a pixel shader.

Some people just need to realise that the world is not going to stand still for them.

I'm sure they could also say you need a HD6990 it doesn't mean they should. If you have a computer you must have a graphics card even if it's built-in and not really a card. No way around it so this isn't really a valid comparison. Now I know you said dedicated but what is really 'dedicated'?

If you see it as a 3D card well you didn't require one back in the day. Unreal could run perfectly well in software mode and today's tech barely breaks a sweat. You can even run some of todays games on cards sold 5 years ago. Sure it might not be very pretty but most will be playable.

Even the bare minimum built-in graphics has some form of 3D acceleration. You can't buy something made today that can't play all current games on minimal settings. The point is that you have what you need to play the game if you want to own a computer. You don't exclude some people just to make it a pretty experience for others so is it fair to require an internet connection?

You can bet a large part of the world doesn't have always available connections. Even those that do might choose not to be connected all the time or play on devices they don't want to be connected. So my answer is NO.

Just my 5c*

Unfortunately since they decided to make real money part of this game, I would prefer an always-on verifier to ensure nobody hacks it in its moer in and then sells exploited gear for real $.

I'm not playing online so why try and stop me from essentially cheating myself? I know you can say I could still decide to cheat others but I can do that anyway. If it's possible to hack there's no way you or anybody else can stop me if I patch the always online part. There are far better ways to prevent what is essentially fraud like having the entire game server side for the people playing online and not allowing any locally stored data to be used. All arguments for why it will make it better for all our offline players just fails.

* Because 2c's are obsolete

 

[will1023631]

I'm sure they could also say you need a HD6990 it doesn't mean they should. If you have a computer you must have a graphics card even if it's built-in and not really a card. No way around it so this isn't really a valid comparison. Now I know you said dedicated but what is really 'dedicated'?

If you see it as a 3D card well you didn't require one back in the day. Unreal could run perfectly well in software mode and today's tech barely breaks a sweat. You can even run some of todays games on cards sold 5 years ago. Sure it might not be very pretty but most will be playable.

Even the bare minimum built-in graphics has some form of 3D acceleration. You can't buy something made today that can't play all current games on minimal settings. The point is that you have what you need to play the game if you want to own a computer. You don't exclude some people just to make it a pretty experience for others so is it fair to require an internet connection?

You can bet a large part of the world doesn't have always available connections. Even those that do might choose not to be connected all the time or play on devices they don't want to be connected. So my answer is NO.

Just my 5c*


I'm not playing online so why try and stop me from essentially cheating myself? I know you can say I could still decide to cheat others but I can do that anyway. If it's possible to hack there's no way you or anybody else can stop me if I patch the always online part. There are far better ways to prevent what is essentially fraud like having the entire game server side for the people playing online and not allowing any locally stored data to be used. All arguments for why it will make it better for all our offline players just fails.

* Because 2c's are obsolete

Hmmm, well let's just put it this way. Back when there was the great divide between having an MMX enabled chipset and not having an MMX enabled chipset was the difference between being able to play the latest games and not being able to play the latest games.

The industry can't just stand still for a few disgruntled users. If they did that every time we'd sit with 40 year game droughts until everyone was able to play the games with all the flashy bits and bobs. If they force you to have an internet connection then so by the power of Greyskull let it be. But as has been stated, there will be an eventual patch that removes the requirement for an internet connection then it's a matter of getting a legal copy, applying the patch and shouting "Hoozah! I is a wizard!" and carrying on as though nothing is wrong.

But maybe Blizzard will be kind to us and will provide us with an "Play Offline" option (when pigs fly backwards). But till then I'm happy with their current standing as I have a working internet connection that will accommodate an always online requirement as it has done for many other games (AC II and Fable III, to name the least)

I was emphasising the unlikelihood tending towards impossibility. But yeah, I get what you mean in your points above.

Plus I was yanking yer crank there ( Well not literally, I hope). Was being random till I was inspired to write the rest of the crud I tend to spew ^_^

 

[Prometheus]

Hmmm, well let's just put it this way. Back when there was the great divide between having an MMX enabled chipset and not having an MMX enabled chipset was the difference between being able to play the latest games and not being able to play the latest games.

When was this? Afaik there wasn't any games that forced you to upgrade to MMX. It was a nice to have like 3DNow that was used if your processor had it but would default to basic code if it didn't. Even todays compilers have code for 8086 processors to fall back on. The incredible thing is that this is in the low level libraries and completely transparent to the programmer. I remember a few years back when I did such an asm library procedure 15 lines of code for one instruction. And just being pedantic here but MMX is a processor implementation.

The industry can't just stand still for a few disgruntled users. If they did that every time we'd sit with 40 year game droughts until everyone was able to play the games with all the flashy bits and bobs. If they force you to have an internet connection then so by the power of Greyskull let it be. But as has been stated, there will be an eventual patch that removes the requirement for an internet connection then it's a matter of getting a legal copy, applying the patch and shouting "Hoozah! I is a wizard!" and carrying on as though nothing is wrong.

We could also require everyone to upgrade to physics cards. No need to stand still for a few disgruntled users. The thing is no developer would force that onto us because games run without it. Everyone is really grasping at straws here to justify an arbitrary requirement.

Just because there will be a patch doesn't mean I should be happy about it. I would rather have something that won't ruin my system and install some virus so no matter what they are alienating customers for no benefit.

 

[Nihilim]

Being connected while playing is not really a problem anymore... until you aren't connected anymore. So until we can get reliable Internet in this country these type of things will still cause some headaches. Even to the people with "permanent" connections. And I'm not saying they should change the way the game works. Rather this should be one more motivator for improved telecoms infrastructure in SA.

 

[will1023631]

When was this? Afaik there wasn't any games that forced you to upgrade to MMX. It was a nice to have like 3DNow that was used if your processor had it but would default to basic code if it didn't. Even todays compilers have code for 8086 processors to fall back on. The incredible thing is that this is in the low level libraries and completely transparent to the programmer. I remember a few years back when I did such an asm library procedure 15 lines of code for one instruction. And just being pedantic here but MMX is a processor implementation.


We could also require everyone to upgrade to physics cards. No need to stand still for a few disgruntled users. The thing is no developer would force that onto us because games run without it. Everyone is really grasping at straws here to justify an arbitrary requirement.

Just because there will be a patch doesn't mean I should be happy about it. I would rather have something that won't ruin my system and install some virus so no matter what they are alienating customers for no benefit.

Pleh i meant instruction set, but that is down to symantics. And I distinctly remember some of my older PC games refusing to play if the processor didn't support MMX. Plus the whole physics card thing? They wouldn't force that since they have no clue how many people have physics enabled cards and which don't. So logically they would then go for the safer route and make it an optional extra rather than shooting themselves in the foot.

And they aren't alienating customers. It's not exactly their fault that we're still stuck in the dark ages because no one in this country can see that we're fighting a losing battle. But legislation is slowly changing for the better and within the next decade we might catch up to the rest of the world. But till then we have no choice but to bite the bullet and pipe up.

But then again if we bother to fill out the surveys they ever so often push put we might actually get somewhere since they use surveys as a guideline to determine features built into their future games. But then again we are in the minority since our infrastructure is as good as a lumbering dinosaur with asthma and arthritis.

Either way bickering here about something as trivial as this is getting nowhere. The final choice lies with the consumer. Either get the game and bite the "shitty telecoms" bullet or just leave it. I doubt Blizzard will extend their release schedule for a game that is generating so much hype just to disable some features. But then again who knows. We will just have to wait and see what they eventually do.

 

[JudeC]

my feeling is it creates a demand for piracy, the minute you alienate a section of gamers, by always on connections or whatever, people will find a way, and when they do they will distribute... the demand is there, now it just depends on the supply.

 

[RoosTa]

Will, I'm with you 100%.

Prometheus is arguing the semantics and not discussing the point.

I've been mostly online since 2000 and after 11 years, internet is probably the most used asset we have at home. Forget the the old SP(offline)/MP adage - those lines have been blurring for years now. I've played MMOs and have seen that there is a big advantage playing online vs playing offline. I (and I'm sure many others) want to advance gaming to the next level and online gaming is the future.

In short; At some point or another, the industry moved on and forced an upgrade (to what ever hardware/software would entertain you).

So either upgrade or get left behind.