Forced online play

[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.