Slashdot Mirror
Reaction To Diablo 3's Always-Online Requirement
Last week we discussed news that Diablo 3 will include a real-money auction house for items and require a permanent connection to the internet even for single-player games. Fan reaction has been loud and varied, with many decrying the restrictive DRM. Blizzard exec Robert Bridenbecker said he was surprised by the outrage at the online requirement, saying, "it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry. When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that." Some other developers came out in support of the scheme; id Software's Tim Willits said always-on would be "better for everybody" in the end. Max Schaefer, one of the makers of Diablo 3 competitor Torchlight 2, said he understands why they did it, even though Torchlight 2 is not doing the same: "... it seems that most of what they are doing is related to trying to keep a truly secure, cheat-free economy in Diablo III. Whatever you do, you have to make sacrifices. We sacrifice a cheat-free environment to give players the most options, they are sacrificing options and flexibility for security of the economy like you would in an MMO. I understand their approach and sympathize with the technical difficulties of what they are trying to do."
Sure, there are some situations where you cannot connect to internet, but it's really in minority.
You probably wouldn't say that if you loved in a remote location. For some people connecting to the internet means driving to a wifi-enabled cafe or buying a satellite connection, i.e. the majority of situations they can't connect.
In 80 years I'll still be able to play a lot of games, but no game with online drm will be playable then. So it's a time limited rental. And if that is the case, the price should reflect that.
Not really. Every heard of that concept of moving out of your basement?
Whenever you're on the move, you don't have a connection.
The pirate copy will likely not require Internet at all, so only legitimate users will hurt from this.
Perhaps those people are not the target market for this game, then?
Well - obviously not. But should they be denied the ability to play the game? How much further would you take it - if the next generation of Windows required to be on line would it be fair to remove their computers?
Perhaps those people are not the target market for this game, then?
Yeah fuck them! How dare they play games when they don't even have internet.
Phew. Guess I'm not either -- late 20s "core" gamer, having played previous games in the series, with disposable income. Can't play it when I am traveling for work? Whatever, Blizzard. I'll just get Torchlight 2.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
it seems that most of what they are doing is related to trying to keep a truly secure, cheat-free economy in Diablo III
Could someone explain how a SINGLE player game would affect the economy of the ONLINE game?
The only possible reason for this is that they intend to let you buy items for your single player game from the Auction House.
As shown with Ubisoft games, it probably won't take long for the hackers to break the DRM and post the "clean" version on torrent sites. Which means that for those who have no interest playing online, once again the pirated version would be superior to the paid version as you could play anywhere.
Ironic.
When it comes to a single player game, who cares if I cheat? If the game gets hard in a place, I have nothing against cheating. I can't stand endless grinding in single player RPGs so I cheat. If anything, I would rather have games that make it so I do not need to cheat. Batman: Arkham Asylum was, for me, the perfect game. There was no grinding, no real difficulty spikes, and never did I feel that any boss or puzzle was impossible.
For multiplayer, fine. put cheat detection, require Battle.NET, whatever. If I am playing with other people I want to feel that the games are fair. But don't restrict what I can do on single player. If what I do in single player impacts multiplayer so much that it requires these kind of measures, then that is just plain bad game design. Also, until I have broadband internet access everywhere I take my laptop, constant internet requirements are going to guarantee I will not buy the game.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
This is not about the economy. If it was, they would do the same thing they did for diablo ii. Local games were not part of the economy. Battle.net games were. There's no reason they couldn't do the same thing for Diablo III. Unless their real purpose is preventing piracy.
I'm having a LAN party in September. Starcraft II is not on the game list. Starcraft: Brood War is. I own Starcraft II, but not everyone coming does. They would all buy it if it allowed LAN play. As it is, we will be content playing Starcraft, Unreal Tournament Classic, and Terraria.
You probably wouldn't say that if you loved in a remote location...
I've loved in what I thought was a remote location, but apparently behind the sand bunker on the 17th isn't remote enough.
I'm before the judge on Tuesday :o(
The pirate copy will likely not require Internet at all, so only legitimate users will hurt from this.
exactly. some time ago I started to play Morrowind again (still fun, though the graphics are not competitive anymore) - and it sucks without the no-cd patch/crack; I don't want to plug in the external DVD drive.
the user experience with cracked software is often better than with the original shipment, so it is arguable a sane consumer choice to start with pirating.
My PC isn't always connected to the net - its a little hard to get a decent connection when you're out at sea. So I don't buy "always connected" games. Which is a shame, because there are some great single player games out there which have been crippled by needing a permanent net connection.
It was on my list of games to get - as I loved the previous Diablo games, but if they're going to cripple single player with online DRM then I'm out.
Whoa there. Now you've made the jump to always online DRM making the game a more fun gaming experience? I have played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 and I can't think of a single reason that turning it into yet another shitty MMO is going to make it a "more fun gaming experience". We have a long history showing that whenever a major change is made to a game just so that a more-restrictive DRM scheme could be implemented it has never, ever made the game better. Do you really believe that the online and "MMO-like" elements of Diablo 3 were added first or do you think they added them strictly because they're looking for a way to add DRM? What are the odds that an element added for that reason is going to actually make a game better?
No BS, friend, who do you work for?
You are welcome on my lawn.
No singleplayer offline?
no money from me, then...
I don't really have a lack of connection options, I work for an ISP, I have broadband, I have 3G dongle I can use in my laptop, I even have a 'Droid phone i can get data through, should i have forgotten my 3G dongle...
Heck, in about a 1/3 of the commuter trains there's free wifi!
Don't change a thing.
Blizzard's bad gamedesign/need to snoop on my gaming sessions/me finding myself in an area without coverage is going to ensure that i will 'vote with my dollar' so to speak, and my vote goes to the company that makes a game playable for me, where ever I am.
If I choose to do a 'Kaczynski' and do my singleplayer gaming from a remote cabin in Wisconsin, it's my choice, not Blizzards.
~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
They do this because PEOPLE STEAM THEIR GAMES, plain and simple.
When they outlaw steaming of games, only outlaws will steam games. I for one enjoy placing my game discs in my Veggie steamer. It gives my broccoli a nice tangy flavor. A copy of StarCraft is the only way to make good Sushi rice.
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
I live in a mid sized city in new york state. My time warner cable connection drops randomly, several times a week, forcing me to reload and reenter things like forms(slashdot posts). It is saturatedand Time warner is cheap. I dont have an always on connection so now i cant play diablo III except for early in the morning.
Cable connectioms across the country arent stable enough leaving 100 million potentioal users in the dirt.
How about servicemen in afgahnistan? Or on deployment on ships? They cant play it either. They cant even play Starcraft againist each other in their down time.
Assuming an always on connection is always wrong.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
That's asinine. System requirements exist to give people an idea of what hardware is necessary to play the game. You can still try to play the game on lower hardware requirements, but it might not run very well. It's a physical barrier and they're giving you an idea of what the lowest configuration is. Always-online is just nonsense by Blizzard; it has nothing to do with physical barriers. There's nothing about single player that requires an internet connection EVER. LAN is arguable, I think it's extremely important but obviously Blizzard would rather shaft the customer as usual. Always-on is not a physical barrier, it is a virtual barrier. There could easily be an option on the main screen that says "offline mode" (hell, even Steam and Starcraft II have offline modes, though the former needs to be started in the absence of an internet connection to get to it). The game could easily run without an internet connection if Blizzard just flipped a bit somewhere. But no, they want to give people like me who are often on the move the shaft because they think it will make them a few more dollars. Fuck that. I've already canceled my pre-order. I'll be doing exactly what you said: taking my business elsewhere.
DNRTFA
Now the developer for Torchlight 2 has given a clear and measured response that I can literally buy in to. Blizzard simply believes they are protecting the customer. For most customers this may work just fine, but I apparently am not like "most customers." Regularly I make trips to the in-laws up in the most remote part of Idaho. My father-in-law still uses dialup for his infrequent E-bay purchases and cattle futures report. When I travel to my in-laws, this is precisely the environment where I need a long single-player campaign that does not need a constant on-line connection. The original Torchlight kept me sane and entertained for hours while I avoided conflict with "the other side" of the family. It seems this will also be true for Torchlight 2, thus I will very likely buy the game - simply to preserve what's left of my sanity.
Diablo 3, not so much. I'm not one to spend money on a second game when the first still needs to be thoroughly played.
Now, I'm pretty certain Blizzard does not care about my lonely little circumstance. That's fine by me, I don't care much about their game if it appears to be unusable to me. I just hope developers like Torchlight continue to provide an awesome alternative, otherwise my money will go unspent - at least until I am committed to the asylum. Then it will be spent for white coats and medication. O_o
H0ek
H0ek
Think you're smart? Prove you've got brains!
The significant difference is that it is a system requirement that does not need to be there. Having a particular video card is essential for computer to actually run the game whereas an internet connection active on a single player campaign is not (especially if its only purpose is increased DRM). Now if Blizzard decided to stream content to the game and have unique quests (or other elements) popping up in-game during different days, THEN such a connection would be justified as you would otherwise lose access to that extra content. Hopefully Blizzard does something else with this "always online" requirement outside of keeping tabs on who actually paid money for the game. It would certainly be a good motivator to buy because you would get more out of the game than someone whom pirated and was left with a fixed amount of content. Re-playability would be much higher too because there would always be more to do.
I know graphics cards can be a bit pricey, however, a new graphics card rarely requires that you change jobs and move to a part of the country with better Internet access.
I wouldn't be affected by the problem of an Inadequate Internet connection, mine was good enough to play WoW (and go on 40 man raids), but I won't be buying Diablo 3 (I own a copy of both Diablo and Diablo 2). Frankly, I probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, but this always on restriction validates my decision. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned the Blizzard that produced the games that I used to love is dead. It died shortly after it sold out to Vivendi.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Whoa there. Now you've made the jump to always online DRM making the game a more fun gaming experience? I have played Diablo 1 and Diablo 2 and I can't think of a single reason that turning it into yet another shitty MMO is going to make it a "more fun gaming experience". We have a long history showing that whenever a major change is made to a game just so that a more-restrictive DRM scheme could be implemented it has never, ever made the game better. Do you really believe that the online and "MMO-like" elements of Diablo 3 were added first or do you think they added them strictly because they're looking for a way to add DRM? What are the odds that an element added for that reason is going to actually make a game better?
No BS, friend, who do you work for?
I'm on the verge of thinking that you're falling the other way in the argument, in automatically assuming a malicious motive for adding this stuff.
It can entirely be that there is a synergy. They want to enhance the game (which I will grant, always-online can add some really cool enhancements to the regular gameplace) but that's the point, these are enhancements and should thusly not be mandatory. Sure, my X-Box 360 does some really cool things when it's online... but when it's offline, at least I can still play my games.
The problem is that they want to add this always-on draconian DRM, and using "enhancements as mandatory" to justify it. YES, provide cool online enhancements, and sure, require always-on DRM to use those online enhancements, but there is not a single enhancement in that group that justifies making it mandatory for playing it single player.
Not even "preventing cheating" is a good enough reason to remove all ability at single player offline play. I'm not playing with anyone else after all.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
No, it died when those shitheaded SOB's at Activision bought Vivendi and created "Activision/Blizzard."
The "Always-On Requirement" is the kind of shit that comes out of the heads of the PHB-style suits who've been running franchise after franchise into the ground over at Activision.
As for "Who would want to play single player"? ME. I don't really care too much about the "multiplayer experience." I'll play the game on my own and that's fine.
Moving on up, you have people with ridiculously throttled connections. You have people who are living in remote locations who don't have consistent connections (a friend of mine is an oilfield services engineer, trust me, you don't get shit for a connection when you are out on a rig). You have people who are traveling on a laptop and don't have a free wi-fi connection nearby. You have servicemen and women in the armed forces. You have people who may have an "always-on" service but are in one of those fringe areas where TW, Cox, Comcast, etc don't give a crap about service and take weeks to repair any problems.
There are too many reasons NOT to do what Blizzard did and I hope they get a rude awakening at the sales counter. Every copy of Diablo 3 should have a 5-inch fucking sticker added to the front labeled with "NO SINGLE PLAYER. FUCK YOU. SIGNED BLIZZARD."
They're not really surprised. They fake surprise because the alternative is worse. They just don't fucking care.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's really about the greed. the DRM is really *NOT* for piracy. honestly i dont think blizzard gives a flip about piracy, a major component of the game is online multiplayer. games like that have been hard to pirate back in the D2 days if your key wasn't legit bnet would kick you out. sure you could use a keygen for single player but online wouldn't accept the key.
this really stems from the micro trans shop. blizzard knows a lot of people like to start with single player to get a feel for a game before jumping in. they want you to be able to transition your SP character to a MP character and buy crap from their store to support that character.
personally i knew it was going to be like this last year when i didn't buy starcraft 2 because of their DRM bullshit. now i won't be buying D3. the saddest part is how completely unnecessary it is. they could easily secure a healthy online economy with old school cd keys and leave the single player alone and even offer lan or open bnet.
and offline SP isn't just about gaming in the middle of nowhere, i like to cheat in SP sometimes. i downloaded hacked lvl99 D2 characters just for shits in giggles an had a few hours fun obliterating the game and testing various builds to see which one i wanted to shoot for online.
Because of the things blizzard is doing this move is needed to help stave of some serious issue that can arise with RMT. I think they are bold for doing this and it makes sense why they would. In this iteration of the series SP has taken a backseat, especially given the popularity of MP in D2.
No, it doesn't make sense. I can respect the desire to avoid cheating and to emphasize solid MP gameplay. But from a technical perspective, how hard would it be to give you a choice of local or server storage for your character at the beginning of a single player game? If you choose server storage, you need an Internet connection and you can use that character in online games. If you choose local storage, no connection required but that character can only be used for single-player games.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. It is not aimed at those who have trouble with the internet. Your troubles with the internet does not supersede the design and direction of the game.
Of course I have the option of not buying it. I also have the option of bitching about a stupid requirement to play a game. My bitching is not aimed at players who see no problem with the requirement. It's aimed at Blizzard, to let them know why I won't be a customer for this game. Your irritation with my bitching doesn't supersede my right to bitch or to let Blizzard know that they have potential customers who are not actual customers because of this decision. If you don't like my bitching, don't read/listen to it.
For what it's worth, my perspective is influenced by serving twenty years in the US Navy. When you're stuck for six months on a ship at sea with no personal Internet connection possible, games become a great way to pass the time. As more and more games make an Internet connection a requirement for playing even single player games, it'll soon get to the point where you aren't choosing to not purchase a particular game but are being forced to give up gaming entirely.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Blizzard exec Robert Bridenbecker said he was surprised by the outrage at the online requirement
Then he's lying or he's had his head shoved up his ass for the last 5-10 years. The response to "always on" DRM has been almost universally negative. It indicates just how out of touch these guys are with the market and their potential customers.
"it really is just the nature of how things are going, the nature of the industry. When you look at everything you get by having that persistent connection on the servers, you cannot ignore the power and the draw of that."
Yup. You get a game who's very playability depends on a fragile authentication system that may not always be there. If either side has any connectivity or stability problems *POOF* no game! You have a customer that is completely unable to play the game they paid for. Bravo! Bravo! Monetizing downtime!
Some other developers came out in support of the scheme; id Software's Tim Willits said always-on would be "better for everybody" in the end.
HOW? Because it kills the secondary market? How is being absolutely dependent on an auth server EVEN FOR SINGLE PLAYER MODE good for the consumer? How is being unable to resell old games good for the consumer? What Timmy is saying here is it's "better for everybody who's a game publisher".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!