Always-on internet "good for everyone" - id Software

In my opinion this is a good thing and a bad thing...

1. If most games that are coming out max out 384k then = bad

2. If it doesnt max out a 384 line i think its good because this will basically eliminate (slowly) all the cheaters online, because personally i find hacking the most annoying thing ever.
 
lilors said:
they will never be able to shut down piracy completely, so why bother trying?
Click to expand...

It's not about piracy any longer. It's all about the the second-hand market nowadays. Trying to sell your D3 would mean you have to include your Bnet account, which might be linked to other Blizzard games you own.
 
Graal said:
It's not about piracy any longer. It's all about the the second-hand market nowadays. Trying to sell your D3 would mean you have to include your Bnet account, which might be linked to other Blizzard games you own.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... but linking games to a single account like NC, EA, Blizzard and many others are doing still doesn't demand an always-on connection. In the sense that they are looking to stop hackers and cheaters, like Caboose said, yeah, great, I can see where they are coming from - and for multiplay, of course you need the internet connection.

But for single-player? Demanding a constant internet connection is a dick move. Even the best connected countries in the world have internet issues from time to time - SA is far from the best.
 
shadowfox said:
Yeah ... but linking games to a single account like NC, EA, Blizzard and many others are doing still doesn't demand an always-on connection. In the sense that they are looking to stop hackers and cheaters, like Caboose said, yeah, great, I can see where they are coming from - and for multiplay, of course you need the internet connection.

But for single-player? Demanding a constant internet connection is a dick move. Even the best connected countries in the world have internet issues from time to time - SA is far from the best.
Click to expand...

If you carry on like this im gonna have to give you positive rep on every post.
At least someone can see that this is the most retarded thing to hit gaming since DLC at huge prices.
 
Best we can hope for is that they remove the connection requirements later, like what Ubisoft did with Conviction, where later on you only needed to be connected when initally starting the game. Even that is still draconian, though.
 
Graal said:
Best we can hope for is that they remove the connection requirements later, like what Ubisoft did with Conviction, where later on you only needed to be connected when initally starting the game. Even that is still draconian, though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I just don't believe there should ever be a system that seperates a gamer from something he paid for should there be a glitch along the way. Once off authentication when the game installs, as much as I hate it, it still the lesser of all evils.
 
It's not impossible that 'the always on' internet policy could appreciate the value of D3... It means that the community will be larger. Also, it might hurt the experience if you don't have mates to play with because then you might end up partying with people who don't value basic etiquette. But hey trolls are unavoidable in any game. 13 year olds calling me a "noob faggot"? Where do I sign up?!?!
 
I'd be curious to see how long it would take for a always off "patch".

Edit:
If we all don't buy rage (which is not going to happen knowing how gamers can't vote with their pockets), will ID/Bethesda then gladly give non always on options ?
 
Last edited:
strawberry said:
fair enough, hadn't taken that into consideration. however, if people always have the option of playing with others, more people will play with others.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... I love playing with others. Except when I don't want to.

And of course, if you have broken interwebz, you won't be able to play with others. Or with yourself, for that matter.

(Yeah ... it sounds wrong. I'm leaving it like that for the lulz :p )
 
Okay, my bad. Literally just saw this get posted on another forum:

Blizzard Entertainment's Community Manager talks about the studio's decision to implement always online requirement in their upcoming Diablo universe game.
Diablo 3 Screenshot 125

Earlier today, Blizzard Entertainment's Community Manager Bashiok did an introduction to the technology behind the upcoming Diablo III game.

Within the forum post, Bashiok explains why Blizzard made a decision to create a title that requires people to be online to enjoy it and compares this client/server architecture to the World of Warcraft's technology.

Blizzard Entertainment:

In addition to all the other benefits that we believe ultimately come from having everyone online such as an active, centralized community, a popular arena system, accessible character storage, etc. etc. Diablo III is built on a client/server architecture, which means not all the data for the game or mechanics reside on the client (your computer).

This is not too unlike World of Warcraft where the world itself, the art, the sounds, etc. are on your machine, but all of the NPC’s and enemies are controlled by the server. Diablo III doesn’t function in all of the exact same ways, but things like monster randomization, dungeon randomization, item drops, the outcomes of combat, among others, are all handled and verified by the client talking to the server, and vice versa.

We’ve learned a lot from this type of architecture from World of Warcraft, and the added security and oversight it provides. It allows a great deal of control over the game at all times for all players, so if we know there’s an issue or bug we can usually address it right then and there through a live hotfix. Hotfixes can’t be used for everything, we’re still going to have client patches, but we’re definitely looking forward to being able to deliver a consistently high quality experience to all players simultaneously through processes like hotfixes.

In addition there are some pretty intense security concerns. While there’s never a fool proof solution to stopping hack and cheats, we’ve found that a strict client/server architecture is a huge barrier for their development and use.

Ultimately we made the decision to make the game client/server based because of the security and quality it can provide to those playing, and as a bonus it reinforces a lot of our ideals for a thriving online community.
Click to expand...

Source.

Sooo, that means if you get 400 latencies to WoW, expect the same when playing singleplayer D3. I really don't get why they don't just make it an MMO, because literally the only thing that prevents it being one right now is that they're not yet calling it one.
 
So sick of this crap already. Devs think that DRM and similar software are a success. It's not! It's pissing off the loyal consumers. DRM>>>>Cracked game>>>>More piracy. Vicious cycle much?
 
Always online seems like a steep requirement and it's pretty much a draconian form of DRM. I do think however that if they tag Diablo 3 as an MMORPG, all the anger will vanish into thin air.
 
Guitar Demon said:
So sick of this crap already. Devs think that DRM and similar software are a success. It's not! It's pissing off the loyal consumers. DRM>>>>Cracked game>>>>More piracy. Vicious cycle much?
Click to expand...

And yet each time CDProjectRed has managed to be totally successful with witcher and very light drm at launch.
 
Pr⊕phet said:
And yet each time CDProjectRed has managed to be totally successful with witcher and very light drm at launch.
Click to expand...

I also lol'ed at the irnoy of that. There was a time we were bitching and moaning because we had to do a once-off activation of our games on the internet before we could play. Anybody remember the entire Mass Effect fiasco?
 
Graal said:
I also lol'ed at the irnoy of that. There was a time we were bitching and moaning because we had to do a once-off activation of our games on the internet before we could play. Anybody remember the entire Mass Effect fiasco?
Click to expand...

I think that was more because of the whole "you can only install 3 times" or something like that - which was one of the most epically bad choices ever, especially if you are one of those folk who reformat your PC at regular intervals.

Luckily by the time I got around to actually buying it, that whole thing had been done away with, and it was reduced to the once-off activation.

Like I said, that much I can deal with - despite the fact that it feels like Big Brother is watching the wrong people.
 
i Agree if anything i believe it promotes piracy. i understand piracy is an issue, but if one buys a game, they should be able to play it, regardless of whether they are online or not
 
The biggest issue for me is ... local internet connection sucks at times ... and that is when the forking out of R400+- for a always on internet game seems like a real waste of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top