Forced online play

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pr⊕phet

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosTa

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

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...4624893374434/

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosTa

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glordit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glordit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glordit

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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

---

Hear hear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyzak

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

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.

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.

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

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?

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 ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fivel

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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...

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...

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

(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.

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

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

@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?