Slashdot Mirror


Diablo III Released

Almost 12 years after the launch of its predecessor, Diablo III has now been released. The game went live last night with over 8,000 midnight launch parties across the world. 2,000,000 players showed up for the beta test prior to launch, including 300,000 concurrently during an open beta weekend, but even so, the login servers struggled for the first few hours after launch. Diablo III had been in the works for quite some time — another example of Blizzard's notoriously long development cycle — and game director Jay Wilson said it was in "polish mode" for the past two years. "One of our sayings internally is 'polish as you go.' We have a belief that when you put a feature in, you should prototype, but then after you prototype you should do the real thing, and you should polish it to shipping quality." For those of you who are familiar with this type of game, there's an official game guide in which you can browse class skills, items, and other game information. There are also YouTube videos showing how each of the classes work.

594 comments

  1. Hate to put a damper on the celebration by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But should we really be celebrating one of the first major single-player games to *require* that you have an internet connection to even play in solo mode? You can still pop in your ancient copies of earlier Diablos and play. Will the same be true 10 or 15 years from now when the Diablo 3 servers no longer work, or if you should lose your internet connection for some reason (or if Blizzard ever goes belly-up)?

    I know they want to fight piracy and all that. But once again, I think the people who will pay the price are the honest gamers who are going to be forced into piracy some day just to play the game they actually paid for. You try to do the right thing and end up having to make a choice between either not playing the game at all or becoming a criminal.

    Now maybe they'll release a patch some day that will override this, or maybe they won't. But you can bet that the one group that will *definitely* have a patch are the pirates.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Will the same be true 10 or 15 years from now when the Diablo 3 servers no longer work, or if you should lose your internet connection for some reason (or if Blizzard ever goes belly-up)?

      Sure, just Google for a crack to apply to your legally-owned copy. The Internet will always come through.

    2. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by gblackwo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blizzard is one of the few companies to patch their older games years later to no longer require the CD's to play.

      It wouldn't surprise me if down the road they patched Diablo III to no longer require an internet connection.

    3. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is a form of DRM what they're doing here. But i believe a lot of people are quite ok with that (as opposed to Ubisoft for example), since they are providing a lot of perks for requiring to be always online.
      Will the game still be here 10 years from now? No idea. If blizzard will still exist then i sure it will. If it'll go belly up, oh well, sucks to be the gamer then.

    4. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While it's anecdotal for a single company, you can still play Diablo and Diablo 2 on Battle.net, not just on single player. As long as Blizzard exists you'll probably be able to play Diablo 3. It's not perfect, but at least it's not as bad as some companies (EA, Ubi).

    5. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Spad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To quote the PC Gamer "live review":

      I alt+tab out to check my net connection, and it’s working fine. When I get back in, the game’s quit to the main menu with an error saying there’s been an error – it has a number but no specifics. When I try to get back in, it throws up another error that says to make sure all of my party is ready. I’m playing single player. In a few minutes I’m able to log back in and play again. I’ve lost all my progress through the current zone and the world has reset and repopulated with monsters, but my character, items and quest status are intact.

      There’s a lot to say about the fact that this can happen even in single player, but I’ll keep it brief: this is utter bullshit.

    6. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. I will not be playing this one. Even pirated. Torchlight II will get my money, time, and affection. Blizzard can FOAD.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      My Internet is always up. As I played 10 minutes today, my Internet went down and I was booted out. A little irritating. When I played Diablo 2, I played once offline, then I only played online. I wanted to be able to play with the mostly legit pool of players. I didn't want a repeat of the first Diablo and being required myself to use some hacks so player killers wouldn't one shot me. It's the only cheat I ever used as I don't believe in cheating. So, I never really played on the "open battle.net" in D2 as I believed I would have had to deal with even more cheaters, like in the first. (Open battle.net allowed you to play online with your offline character if I remember correctly)

      In the end, while I think not being able to play solo offline is a major loss, I know that I want to play online with people, so the always-on connection isn't that big a deal to me. Diablo is very much a multiplayer experience for me. Just the same, I never bought Assassins Creed and I don't buy any solo player games that required and instant on connection.

    8. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by firex726 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except under the DMCA cracking the game would still be illegal.

      At this time we have no legal recourse to play a game if the DRM servers are taken down. Even in 15 years, they can still come after you for pirating the game if they wanted to.

    9. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by firex726 · · Score: 2, Informative

      But there is no guarantee of that.
      15 years down the road, if they take the servers down will anyone care? Will anyone even remember this post?

      But then we'll have a ton of games that are on a planned obsolescence scale.

    10. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are, of course, severely late to the party; a lot of interesting discussion on this point happened way back in August. Here's the Slashdot conversation from then. I believe the consensus is that since this is Blizzard and not EA, no boycott like the one that marred Spore's release will transpire, and the loss of flexibility will simply be accepted.

      Another controversy from about the same time (which didn't receive Slashdot attention) is that all gameplay-altering modifications are banned in D3, a somewhat harsher stance than the one Blizzard took with WoW interface mods. There has been some concern that DarkD3, a mod that diminishes the game's 'painted' look to make it clearer and crisper graphics may be cause for a ban, but so far the word is "probably not".

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    11. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Wait, randomly having the world reset is NOT a feature?

    12. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pre-ordered a copy a couple of weeks because a bunch of friends are also going to play it, despite me normally avoiding always-on DRM for single player games like the plague. Retail copy arrived today, get home to play. Had already preinstalled the game, put my retail code in via the website... And have spent literally the last hour (6.30 to 7.30pm UK time) trying to login to the bloody thing to play single player, nothing but error 37 and error 75.

      Fuck Blizzard for requiring always-on DRM, and then cheaping out on enough servers to meet demand. Fuck em right up the arse.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    13. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've had a general policy of not buying games for any platform if their PC version requires an always-on connection (aside from MMOs, which it would be unfair to penalise, as "always on" is the very nature of the game there). This means I've missed out on every Assassin's Creed game since the original and a few other titles to boot.

      I agonised about Diablo 3. It did look, at face value, like a straightforward case of Ubisoft-style DRM. However, Blizzard did push quite hard the line that the game had integral features that meant they couldn't have done it without the always-on without making serious compromises to the game. I was... unconvinced. So I decided to wait and see how things went at launch.

      As it happens, Blizzard then wheeled out that "subscribe to WoW for a year get Diablo 3 free" thing at just about the time when I was in the market to get back into an MMO. On balance, I decided that I might as well go for that.

      Now that I've had a few hours with Diablo 3, I can conclude that if it hadn't been for the WoW special offer, this would still have been firmly in the "boycott" camp. I've yet to see any online features that could not have been made 100% optional at no expense to the player (though possibly at some expense to Blizzard through lost real-money auction house fees). If you're in the "undecided" camp on D3 over its DRM, my advice would be to avoid it.

    14. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nope.

      The game client is "dumb" - all the AI and such is done server-side. It's similar in execution to an MMO with only a single player (or small group).

    15. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hvdh · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a bit more complicated than just hacking away some license check. Each game happens in it's own randomly generated game world.

      The world generator code & data is server-side only. The game client does not have the code to generate a world, it can only display and navigate a world. I heard that some (or all?) world generator stuff was shipped with the closed alpha test builds, but was removed before beta test.

      It would take somebody to code something emulating a Blizzard D3 server with quite some logic.

    16. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by PIBM · · Score: 2

      except that most probably the crack will not be able to provide exactly the same experience as the backend server of diablo III. Ever tried to play on an illegitime wow server ? It's the same word, yet, people are unable to provide the same information about what is going on in the background. I guess that they kept most of the important stuff on their diablo III backend, and that even a crack could not fix that.

    17. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the DMCA only applies to the U.S. - so once someone outside the U.S. develops the patch, your machine gets infected with said patch and voila... All good and legal.

    18. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But should we really be celebrating one of the first major single-player games to *require* that you have an internet connection to even play in solo mode?

      You're modded up to +5, but hell, +10 wouldn't be enough.

      If we all collectively support this - letting companies tell us where and when we can run software we buy - then soon there will be no other choice. Control of our computers will effectively be taken away.

      Sure, you can download some crack with unknown amounts of malware infesting it, but that's dancing around the central issue.

      It shouldn't be necessary to have to ask our masters whether we can run a game we paid for. *** Don't support that model ***. Anyone who does is just begging for ever more intrusive measures.

    19. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Informative

      the difference is that here you got almost mmo requirements - server does much more than it did in case of older titles, which was facilitate connection between players. You don't need much power to do that. Afaik in D3 the servers provide monster AI, control the amount of map data sent to the client (to fight maphacks?), manage drops and shit - the computing power required stops being trivial and the maintenance will cost some serious dough.

    20. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Translation+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally don't like the required internet connection, but I wouldn't say it's strictly to prevent piracy. I'm sure everyone remembers what a mess dupers and hackers made of Diablo II; having everything server-side is an effort to stop the same thing from happing to D3. And with the real money auction house, such measures really are necessary because in-game items have an actual cash value.

      So, yes, I'd prefer it if there was an offline single player mode with modding possible, but I understand why they don't have one and that there are benefits to doing it that way.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    21. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, by virtue that I am not poor and can afford the game and have access to constant broadband internet. Also 10 - 15 years from now, Diablo 4 will be out requiring probes stuck in various orifices to play so why would you want to play a 10 - 15 year old game that doesn't use probes?

      --
      I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    22. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1, Interesting

      15 years from now we'll have games and entertainment that will make us not care if some grotty old point and click thing still works.

      But it could just be me, I admit. I never understood gaming nostalgia. I try and go retro once in a while. Lasts about a day or two.

    23. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Wait, randomly having the world reset is NOT a feature?

      well, blizzard considers that a feature. doing the same dungeons again and again and keeping the gear is a feature. more than a feature, it's the game itself..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    24. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Yes, a lot of people are ok with that. However a lot of people are NOT ok with that. I for one do NOT welcome our new software-as-a-service overlords.

    25. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by durrr · · Score: 1

      My favourite perk is the "trying to connect to bnet servers like this is some mmo" perk. I hear everyone enjoys it equally much.

    26. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by slyrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed. I will not be playing this one. Even pirated. Torchlight II will get my money, time, and affection. Blizzard can FOAD.

      I agree, for a third of the price (1/4 if you find 3 friends) you can get Torchlight 2. I've already bought the 4 pack and am eagerly waiting for torchlight 2 to go live. They are doing beta testing now so hopefully it won't be too much longer.

    27. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Blizzard did this because they can. While other games with such a restriction wouldn't sell enough copies to cover lunch, Diablo 3 will make plenty of Blizzard investors into millionaires.

      You can rant about how evil and/or stupid this is...but from their perspective it makes perfect sense. And the money you (and 99.9999% of the other Diablo fans) will give them will prove them right.

    28. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Actually most of the "private" WoW servers are carbon copies of blizzard's own servers. Blizzard leaks a whole lot of code server side apparently.

      The reason for "different experience" lies in various modifiers applied to servers (like gaining way more exp) as well as oftentimes asshole-ish owners.

    29. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by eth1 · · Score: 1

      But should we really be celebrating one of the first major single-player games to *require* that you have an internet connection to even play in solo mode? You can still pop in your ancient copies of earlier Diablos and play. Will the same be true 10 or 15 years from now when the Diablo 3 servers no longer work, or if you should lose your internet connection for some reason (or if Blizzard ever goes belly-up)?

      A shame... I played the heck out of Diablo I and II, but I completely stopped even bothering to follow the development of DIII when heard about the single-player internet requirement.

    30. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, because then I'd be supporting a company that supports DRM. Instead, I'll just not buy the game at all.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    31. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Just checked it out, Torchlight looks pretty sweet. Diablo III is out? Time to buy Torchlight!

    32. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you haven't realized that U.S. law applies everywhere now, you certainly will when the FBI asks your country to extradite you and they comply.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    33. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or stealing it. This may well happen.

    34. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      D2 was actively played until D3's release. That's what, 12 years now?

    35. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by slyrat · · Score: 1

      I've had a general policy of not buying games for any platform if their PC version requires an always-on connection (aside from MMOs, which it would be unfair to penalise, as "always on" is the very nature of the game there). This means I've missed out on every Assassin's Creed game since the original and a few other titles to boot.

      I agonised about Diablo 3. It did look, at face value, like a straightforward case of Ubisoft-style DRM. However, Blizzard did push quite hard the line that the game had integral features that meant they couldn't have done it without the always-on without making serious compromises to the game. I was... unconvinced. So I decided to wait and see how things went at launch.

      As it happens, Blizzard then wheeled out that "subscribe to WoW for a year get Diablo 3 free" thing at just about the time when I was in the market to get back into an MMO. On balance, I decided that I might as well go for that.

      Now that I've had a few hours with Diablo 3, I can conclude that if it hadn't been for the WoW special offer, this would still have been firmly in the "boycott" camp. I've yet to see any online features that could not have been made 100% optional at no expense to the player (though possibly at some expense to Blizzard through lost real-money auction house fees). If you're in the "undecided" camp on D3 over its DRM, my advice would be to avoid it.

      This is exactly the kind of reasons, along with price, that I'm going into the Torchlight 2 camp.

    36. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      Case in point, your internet connection went down and you were booted out after ten minutes of play. My wife and I used to log dozens and dozens of hours on Diablo II playing together and with other friends over LAN without a hitch. Without that option I'm not buying.

    37. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'd rather it didn't FOAD just because of this game. I'm still enjoying SC2 custom maps, I'll likely be buying HoS expansion when it comes out unless they institute similar lame DRM as D3 (unlikely) and I'll probably play MoP.

      I won't be playing D3 because the DRM model and RMAH leave a bad taste in my mouth.

    38. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by AntiNazi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unless a LOT has changed in the last few expansions, they didn't leak enough. Huge amounts of quests and integral spells did not work on privates last time I tried to play on one (admittedly during vanilla). These were things people definitely wanted to work but couldn't make happen, not your standard mods of xp and gold amounts.

    39. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Both will get my money and time, and neither will get my affection.

      Affection is for people, not companies.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    40. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My 13 year old Warcraft2 B.Net ed still works just fine.

      "Why invest into computer when electrical grids may not even exist in 10-15 years?" ---- that is you right now

    41. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If they gonna extradite me for cracking my legally owned software, I got one thing to say: When they kick down your front door, how you gonna come?

      \internet-toughguy-mode

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    42. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of Project 1999 a recreation of classic EverQuest. It's an absolutely phenomenal experience for anyone with fond memories of EQ. However, it's not perfect as the world has been pieced together from various leaks, logs and web posts but in all honesty that's half the fun!

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    43. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by GNious · · Score: 1

      Then I'm glad that I live in a country where the law explicitly prohibits extradition to countries with the Death Penalty... ...though why our goverment allow and support rendition, I cannot fathom.

    44. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by idontgno · · Score: 2

      OTOH, if you succeed, you score an in-game achievement. Awesome.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    45. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not perfect, but at least it's not as bad as some companies (EA, Ubi).

      Activision. Oops, Blizzard is Activision now.

    46. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that there is something outside the US of A. That is the first step, now spend some time reseaching equivalents of DMCA in those possible places outside, I'll give you a hint: EUCD.

    47. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by couchinator · · Score: 1

      Yeah; I don't know why people are assuming that Blizzard will shut down the D3 servers any time soon. They are pretty good about keeping their game servers alive.

    48. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jmerlin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This isn't true. The interoperability clause in the DMCA is what makes no-CD cracks legal. A no-internet crack would be legal by the same reasoning. When you start using it to distribute infringing copies of the game, yes, you are violating copyright law, the same way a no-CD crack let you play a ripped copy of older games, despite the crack itself being legal for personal use.

    49. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean like the people the emulate WOW servers?

    50. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal to use but not create or distribute. What use is a phone if you can't obtain it?

    51. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      The always on DRM is the reason why I haven't gotten the game, and why I'm waiting for the user reviews to stabilize. I'll put up with this kind of DRM in StarCraft only because it is intended for online PvP mostly, and the single player is a novelty to me. WoW is fine with this setup since it doesn't work single player anyways. Diablo is another story, and I objected to Ubisoft putting this kind of DRM in their games and refuse to by them for the same exact reason. As for your claim that this is the first major game I'd object. Assassins Creed is certainly a major title and it has this kind of maliciousness DRM, and for people who bought StarCraft for the single player certainly had the same issue though they must be in the minority. This doesn't look good with the user scores ether. It looks like this is more hated then Mass Effect 3, but we'll see when the scores stabilize.

    52. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I was referring to "retro games" not being attractive, not shutting down servers. Activision isn't known to be nice to things that don't bring in money.

    53. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uuh.. no. not unless you move the machine and yourself out of the USA.
      the DMCA doesnt care where the patch you put in comes from.

    54. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Dinghy · · Score: 1

      As long as Blizzard exists and you have a relatively low latency internet connection active you'll probably be able to play Diablo 3. It's not perfect, but at least it's not as bad as some companies (EA, Ubi).

      As much as I hate memes, FTFY. Want to play some single player while waiting for a flight, or in a hotel, or if Comcrap goes down again? Sorry, sucks to be you. On a satellite connection? bwa ha ha I hope you're not playing hardcore mode. The real reason for this is because by keeping as tough a stance on cheating/duping, they can keep prices higher in the RMAH, and earn more money. They're betting that the income from that (15% and up) will offset the lost sales from people who are angry about the online-required aspect. Sadly I think they're right.

    55. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At 7.76GB installed, that's one helluva a "dumb" MMO client. You are right of course, I'm just throwing that out there for everyone ponder. Video and music take up space, sure. But is there really that much texture data?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    56. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I'd rather it didn't FOAD just because of this game. I'm still enjoying SC2 custom maps

      SC2 has no lan play. Blizzard can FOAD because of both games.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    57. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by berashith · · Score: 1

      that looks dangerous. I want to build up the ice comet spell again now... The level cap at 50 makes that a hell of a challenge.

    58. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by dasherjan · · Score: 1

      Welp...gaming was a fun past time while it lasted.

    59. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure everyone remembers what a mess dupers and hackers made of Diablo II

      What could dupers and hackers possibly have to do with single player or LAN play? Dupers and hackers are only a problem on internet matches. The solution to that problem should only apply to internet matches.

      Those who would sacrifice essential functionality for temporary security deserve neither.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    60. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by metalgamer84 · · Score: 1

      "Was"? Try still is.

    61. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by slyrat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just checked it out, Torchlight looks pretty sweet. Diablo III is out? Time to buy Torchlight!

      Oh and you get a free copy of Torchlight if you pre-order torchlight 2. Another reason to get it over Diablo 3.

    62. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry...in a couple of months a pirate version with any DLC released will be put out and yet again, as we have seen over and over AND OVER....the pirate version will be better.

      And this is why I don't mess with games that don't use anything more than Steam DRM. the Steam DRM is like the old CD checks, its just enough that Billy Bob can't just slap his games on a disc and pass them around but go to any crack site and they have dozens of cracks for the various Steam games.

      But as long as you'll get people who'll camp out all night just to get screwed by an always on Internet DRM crapfest then thing will never change. i do have to give them credit, using a game like Diablo to push this shit is like using Madden, there is just no way it'll flop. Hell they could cover game boxes with broken glass and give everyone who purchased a punch in the crotch and they'd STILL sell millions.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    63. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      No, we shouldn't be celebrating the DRM. This point is driven home even more with the incredibly rocky launch due to the authentication servers breaking under load. Even now, I think they've pulled the D3 servers offline for "emergency maintenance," meaning nobody can play the game in any form.

      Maybe we should be celebrating this as a triumph of demonstrating the downfalls of such bad DRM.

    64. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Will the same be true 10 or 15 years from now when the Diablo 3 servers no longer work, or if you should lose your internet connection for some reason (or if Blizzard ever goes belly-up)?

      Absolutely. We just have to wait a few months for the pirate version to come out.

      I have friends with a lot of purchasing power who buy a game, throw it in a drawer, and download the pirate version to deal with less bullshit and a clear conscience. (I don't really do that since I have a lot of games on my Steam account and more games than time to play them.) If they really don't like the company, they'll buy it used - if at all.

      It's amazing. It used to be that pirate versions would just break copy protection. Later on, they were necessary for the games to actually even work on some systems. Now you have pirate versions (such as Starcraft II since we're on the subject of Blizzard) that is actually adding features that don't exist in the core game - like LAN play for instance.

      People complain that Starcraft II doesn't have LAN play? Sure it does, just not in the retail version. Diablo III doesn't have offline and LAN play yet, but it will.

    65. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by lgw · · Score: 1

      The game costs $60 new, and will only cost less over time. Why would I possibly care that I might possibly only get 10 or 15 years of gameplay from somehting I paid $60 for? What nonsense.

      Here's the problem I have with it: the service sucks right now. Blizzard has never once launced an online game without horrible server problems at the start. Whe D2 was new I could just ignore the online fiasco and play the isng player. Now I can't play the damn game w/o being kicked out every 5 minutes. What a crock!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    66. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      It's really sad where gaming has ended up. I'm carefully watching this next gen of consoles. If they mess it all up with used game prevention and multiplayer codes, I'm going to forego it altogether and start on my ultra-arcade cabinet that will play every game on every system I can get my hands on. A dream, yes, but one day it will happen.

    67. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At 7.76GB installed, that's one helluva a "dumb" MMO client. You are right of course, I'm just throwing that out there for everyone ponder. Video and music take up space, sure. But is there really that much texture data?

      Executable code is tiny by comparison. All that data is textures, models, animation, and audio (sound effects, voice, and music). So, no, there's nothing to ponder, really.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    68. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      every Assassin's Creed game since the original

      AC:Brotherhood and Revelations never required an Internet connection to be always on. ACII did, but it has since been patched out.

    69. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It wouldn't surprise me if down the road they patched Diablo III to no longer require an internet connection."

      Well, IF they do that, then I'll consider picking up a copy. Until then, they can go fuck themselves.

    70. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen pirated copies of Diablo III by razor1911 floating around. How do they work, then?

    71. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I said it could be just me.

      I suppose I could play a game of M.U.L.E. if it was at hand.

    72. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by bryansj · · Score: 4, Funny

      I doubt you will be missed. They obviously have sold enough copies to melt their servers without your purchase.

    73. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      There's an exhibit in the national portrait gallery here in DC called, "The Art of Video Games" This exhibit has a number of playable games on display from many eras. I've been in the building several times since the exhibit started and the most popular games are always pac-man and super mario bros.

    74. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Why would I possibly care that I might possibly only get 10 or 15 years of gameplay from somehting I paid $60 for?

      I care because the restriction (if it happens) is completely unnecessary. Simply more nonsensical piracy paranoia with no way to escape from the DRM (that would be their intention).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    75. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard actually has a decentish record as these things go. They release patches for D2 and SC1 for No-CD functionality most of a decade after those games came out, and they tend to maintain and support patching and matchmaking services longer than pretty much any other company in the games industry.

    76. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      "Not as bad" doesn't translate into "good." In fact, I still see it as bad.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    77. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't they just use the cd-patch off tpb and repackage it?

    78. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by tedgyz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure, but if the company goes belly up in 15 years who is going to pay the lawyers to go after the hackers?

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
    79. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Welcome to any game in the last 10 years.

    80. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Rakshasa-sensei · · Score: 1

      It's not even VIDEO.... I'm stealing net from some open WiFi 1.5 km away (in the middle of the densest populated part of a largest city... ehm... anyway), at 2-400k the intro video was _very_ laggy. And when I restarted it, it would work perfectly until the spot where it stopped last.

      Yet after finally getting through it and trying replay... It started buffering again; the video was not saved.

    81. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by allanw · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't really understand this argument. In Diablo 2, you could play single-player, but that character would never make it onto battle.net. Sure, you could just always play LAN games with your friends, but you'd never be able to take any of your progress online. Or if you go on open battle.net, anyone can just edit their save file and give themselves whatever items or levels they wanted. In Diablo 3, it's the same thing if you want to play your character on closed battle.net.

    82. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by lgw · · Score: 0

      If we're talking matters of principle, there are so many things that I care so much more about. If we're talking practicality - who cares, it's $60, not a new car.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    83. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Translation+Error · · Score: 0

      No one, not even Blizzard, cares what people do in offline/LAN games per se, but having access to the game engine and character files made it a lot easier for people to create exploits that they used to affect Battle.net games and characters.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    84. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I originally AC'd I misunderstood the level of involvement between the client and server in Diablo 3. Now I truly do question the level of integration they have attempted for single player. Might as well just have bought a virtual image on some Blizzard server and run an RDP session.

    85. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pre-ordered a copy

      Fuck Blizzard for requiring always-on DRM

      They'll be sorry now!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    86. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by dbet · · Score: 2

      By contrast the WoW client is more than 20 GB.

    87. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ModernGeek · · Score: 2

      I agree with you and have an even more advanced stance on this. Video game releases do not belong on the front page of slashdot, unless they are showcasing something that is technologically revolutionary. This is just an advertisement for some crappy game.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    88. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I see. So, instead of "to stop the pirates," it's now, "to stop the pirates and to stop the evil hackers!" Why does punishing everyone to get at a few people still not seem like a good thing to me?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    89. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who doesn't play online, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Why should that be my problem, and why shouldn't I just buy another game if Blizzard insists on making that my problem?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    90. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, maybe I buy it down the road then

    91. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should be celebrating this as a triumph of demonstrating the downfalls of such bad DRM.

      But will anything really change? People will be annoyed that they can't play their game, and then when they finally can, they'll probably just silently accept it and happily play away. Then when another shiny DRM-infested game comes along, it'll be time to shell out some more cash.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    92. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by pcgc1xn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't get your hour back, and it doesn't get you the game, but - return it. The game doesn't work. Not sure of the exact details of the UK Sale of Goods Act, but seems pretty clear to me. If enough people return the game, it might encourage them to think a little about their strategy next time. Sucking it up won't.

    93. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diablo III doesn't have offline and LAN play yet, but it will.

      Doubtful. The game client is basically just the art assets; the actual game engine runs from the server.

    94. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jxander · · Score: 2

      This is more than just piracy... this is real money in-game transactions. That's the real issue.

      Diablo is the first game in which I can legally, with full dev support, sell you an awesome sword of +1 buttwhooping that I found for $10 (or whatever price-point I set) This isn't Dev-sold items, this isn't the F2P model where you pay $$ to the publisher to unlock new costume items... no. This is you or me, potentially supplementing our income by playing a video game. That's unprecedented.

      In order for that to work, Blizzard must do everything possible to combat the RAMPANT hacking, duping, and various other cheating methods that plagued Diablo2. And don't kid yourself, D2 was rife with that crap. End result: online only. All drops exist server-side. Added benefit of lowered requirements on client-side PCs

      All that said, Blizz has never really let me down in a big way. Sure, I don't agree with everything they've done, and we could argue for hours on end about making WoW too casual and what-not... but they've never really screwed the pooch, imo. To that end, I fully believe that should Blizzard ever go tits-up, or the Diablo3 servers cease to exist, I am confident that Blizz would axe the real-money auction house (with plenty of advance notification,natch) and release some "stand-alone" update so that you can continue to play 10-20-30 years down the road, if you so desire.

      --
      This signature is false.
    95. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If we're talking matters of principle, there are so many things that I care so much more about.

      Well, that's you. I for one am capable of caring about multiple things at once.

      If we're talking practicality - who cares, it's $60, not a new car.

      A small amount of harm is still harm. Whether that's worth it or not is, of course, up to the individual buyer to decide. Some people place great value in not being tore away from a product they bought for no good reason.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    96. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jxander · · Score: 0

      Just a hunch here, because I haven't tried them... they work by installing a trojan or other malware on your computer

      Again, just a guess... suffice to say, there is no way to run D3 in a standalone mode, short of maybe building your own D3 server on the same computer... maybe

      --
      This signature is false.
    97. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      But it could just be me, I admit. I never understood gaming nostalgia. I try and go retro once in a while. Lasts about a day or two.

      I still run MAME every once in a while. It's not nostalgia, it's that the games were of a different design. Sometimes i don't want an all inclusive virtual world with billions of ray-traced polygons. I want to blow stuff up.

      The constraints made them simple, clever in some ways. Look at Qix, which was an 8 bit game but had a very clever design, using both intelligence and Arcade speed.

      There used to be a Mac game called Spectre, (It ran on MacOS 6 and 7 to date myself some). It was a simple tank game where you shot from a fixed forward facing gun, and used the arrow keys for controls. Hmm, that makes a total of 5 keys. But the simplicity of that game made it accessible to anyone, and therefore we could build up big team games. We'd blow off an hour or two between classes. In some ways, this is still the most fun I've had gaming, able to bring everyone in, no matter their skill level.

    98. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Jerome+H · · Score: 1

      Magnets most probably...

      --
      int main() { while(1) fork(); }
    99. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fully agree. I'm passing on Diablo III for now. I might buy it after I see a zillion posts on the Internet that crack XYZ solves the single-player Internet problem and that it works, because I loved Diabo 1 and 2, and III looks good. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the creation of a crack has caused me to buy a game that I otherwise would not have because I didn't like the restrictions of its DRM.

    100. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Diablo 3 = WoW with 100% instances?

    101. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Torchlight II will get my money, time, and affection.

      I was thinking about buying the new Diablo, but thanks for reminding me I still need to finish Torchlight....

      It is a really well done game.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    102. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This isn't entirely true either. The interoperability clause only applies if "the elements necessary to achieve interoperability are not readily available". That is, the crack only becomes legal if Blizzard stops their servers. Of course once the crack becomes legal to make you won't have the servers to reverse engineer so our only hope is back to the illegal crackers.

    103. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      Full Rage install: 30GB

      Let's be real, games are getting bigger, but this is NOT one of them.

    104. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      When I started the install process, I waited until it completely downloaded and finished 100%. If I recall, there's an option to start playing around 80 to 90% into the download. While I don't know, I'm guessing you started playing right away when given the chance. If so, what you described would make sense.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    105. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      I've seen pirated copies of Diablo III by razor1911 floating around. How do they work, then?

      They may emulate Blizzard's servers, and then re-direct (using the hosts list, remember that?) all traffic going to blizzard to your local machine where all the stuff you need is present.

      Just a theory, I don't really know, but that's how a lot of crackers do it

    106. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      WHEN they do, THEN I'll buy it.

    107. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by lgw · · Score: 1

      Most things I have bought have broken or failed in some way within 15 years - entropy always wins in the end. I'm not going to enjoy life any less in the meantime.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    108. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      You can still pop in your ancient copies of earlier Diablos and play. Will the same be true 10 or 15 years from now when the Diablo 3 servers no longer work

      Blizzard's track record on this is pretty good. The servers for *original Diablo* (a game that is sixteen years old) are still online. In fact, Blizzard has *never* taken down servers for any of its games.

    109. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      I might want to give it to my great great grandchildren a hundred years later to show them what playing games was like back in the "old days". Even today I can play games like Prince of Persia, Pacman etc. Why? Because I own those games. It's just wrong to create and sell games that will one day be impossible to play without an Internet connection.

    110. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard the problem is Blizzard wants to allow single player characters into multi-player servers, so if you can hack and get sweet items single player you can get them into the multi-player world.

    111. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Affection can also be for games. Like I have affection for Prince of Persia. I don't even recall the name of the company that made it.

    112. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think EverQuest is in double digit gigs these days.

      The original EverQuest.

    113. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

      That is, the crack only becomes legal if Blizzard stops their servers.

      And it will still be illegal to create the crack, since Diablo III will presumably still be under copyright by the time Blizzard pulls the plug.

    114. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ticktickboom · · Score: 0

      fight piracy by making the game imposable to play! i cant wait for the cracked version myself. since i dont have a broadband connection, i cant play a single player game on my computer. i learned my lesson with fallout new vegas. after i bought that, and let steam grind for almost a week and was no closer to being able to play, i went lookin for a pirated version. now i can play! it only has to be illegal. about the patch...i never found a patch for the ligit game, i had to download the completely steam free version. took 3 trips to mc d's to get it all done. i still havent seen a patch. i would love to find some sorta anti steam patch. i want to hear about lulsec or whatever hacking group take down steam, like they did sonys ps3 network. then maybe the companies would start being nice again. piracy is going to happen. if all the studies that have been done about it were released, it would paint a totally different picture. its almost like the govt and the big companies want you to believe they are charging you huge amounts of money because thats hte only way they can make any. but the truth is that piracy accounts for a very small percentage of things. like fake levi's, their out there, but dont hurt the company that much. if be more than happy to buy a steam free version. but i wont pay more for it. we should celebrate when the pirated version hits usenet, then we can all play the game!

    115. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      I have alt-tabbed from Diablo 3 and I was fine.

      However I was playing and my internet had a hiccup, and it killed my game, saying it "Lost Connection to the Internet".

      I don't know how much I lost, but it couldn't be that bad, I am only level 10. Later it will kill me though.

    116. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Most things I have bought have broken or failed in some way within 15 years

      However, I don't really care for it when my things break for no technical reason.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    117. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by brandor · · Score: 1

      They have to have the server connection going. How else would they control item drop rates and such? They have to do this because they are going to have a Diablo 3 "Auction House" where you can buy game items with real world cash. I think this is probably the biggest reason for the constant connection requirement. The rest is just icing for them. Blizzard is not a company that is known for being dicks about stuff like this.

    118. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      so you just run the server code on your local PC - no problems.

      Of course, that doesn't let you prevent cracked games, nor provide a real-money marketplace. I wonder if the cost of piracy outweighs the cost of running all those servers and admin staff (that currently cannot keep up with the load).

    119. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like 21GB??

      There's not enough game OR graphics to justify even 10 gigs though! every fucking enemy class is 1gigabyte??

    120. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you were, but duping and hacking was a huge problem on Diablo II, even on the official servers. At one point, someone released a bot. The DII servers were down for days as all the bot traffic was too much for the servers to handle.

      Of course, they solved this in D3 by introducing the Real Money Auction House, which increases the potential rewards for running bots.

    121. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by JDAustin · · Score: 2

      My EVE Online folder is 10.2 gig and my World Of Tanks folder is 8.9gigs...so 7.7g isnt much.

    122. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ticktickboom · · Score: 0

      pay the lawyers? their on retainer. if the company goes belly up, someone will buy the rights to it, everything is owned anymore. wouldn't it be nice to have them big ceos and politicians tell the truth for a day? would the market fall? would there be civil war in every nation? i just know their going to lie cheat steal and keep anything entertaining away from the lower classes. just like the mid ages, its a class based system. the millionaires have been so far removed from society someone actually thinks drm is a good idea. not only is drm a good idea, but tossing anyone in prison who wants ot play a game is a better idea. lets make thier cellmate a psychotic murder that they have to spend every waking moment with for 5 years. that will teach them to play games!

    123. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can your outrage. You have nobody but yourself to blame. Everybody knew the restrictions of the DRM. Everybody - except the die-hard fanatic fanboys - knew it would end in a shitstorm sooner rather than later. If you still coughed up the money, it's your own damn fault for being a sucker.

    124. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by VGPowerlord · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it will still be illegal to create the crack, since Diablo III will presumably still be under copyright by the time Blizzard pulls the plug.

      Er... the interoperability clause is part of copyright law, so no, it wouldn't be illegal at that point.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    125. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably are right. Diablo III is the most pre-ordered game on Amazon.

    126. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference is that here you got almost mmo requirements - server does much more than it did in case of older titles, which was facilitate connection between players. You don't need much power to do that. Afaik in D3 the servers provide monster AI, control the amount of map data sent to the client (to fight maphacks?), manage drops and shit - the computing power required stops being trivial and the maintenance will cost some serious dough.

      AFAIK the D3 servers only create the world and that is deliberate to reduce piracy, not for technical superiority or because it's not feasible to do it on the players computer, but to tie part of the gameplay to hardware they operate. It's possible they do this to control drops better as well so it affects gameplay somewhat, especially the auction house.

      But the main reason for D3 being ready for so long and being so long in the making was figuring out a drm scheme. That's whats taking time with the next StarCraft game as well.

    127. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To my knowledge, nothing has ever been leaked. The current state of private servers is the culmination of 7 years spent dumping packets and combing database sites.

    128. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck Blizzard for requiring always-on DRM, and then cheaping out on enough servers to meet demand. Fuck em right up the arse.

      You shoulda said that before you got down on your knees and sucked their cock by paying for D3 and its abusive internet-based DRM.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    129. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Supermike68 · · Score: 1
      "Activision and Blizzard Entertainment still exist as separate entities" straight from wikipedia.

      Activision may portray a history of being in it for the money, but Blizzard doesn't. As mentioned before by others; Blizzard is very good at supporting their older titles.

    130. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Unless a LOT has changed in the last few expansions, they didn't leak enough. Huge amounts of quests and integral spells did not work on privates last time I tried to play on one (admittedly during vanilla). These were things people definitely wanted to work but couldn't make happen, not your standard mods of xp and gold amounts.

      Vanilla being upwards of 5 years ago (BC was released in January 2007)...

      WoW is continually being reworked. Heck, I can only think of one non-Raid zone in the WoW old world that is identical to its vanilla version, and that would be Silithus. And by vanilla version, I mean the post-War of the Shifting Sands patch that redid Silithus and added the Ahn'Qiraj dungeons.

      Every other overworld and classic (non-raid) dungeon was redone when Cataclysm launched in late 2010.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    131. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Aryden · · Score: 1

      My eve-online folder is 31 gigs but also contains roughly 7 years of screenshots lol.

    132. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard/Blizzard North != Blizzard/Vivendi.

      Assuming they move into the same big game company mindset as they do like EA (which they did with the auction house, so that the trust fund kiddie in the basement can PvP with the $5000 bankroll given to him.), I seriously doubt D3 will get untethered. Instead the multiplayer/DRM will get shut off, or people will be forced to pay a monthly fee.

    133. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      broderbund with a silly o /.

    134. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 0

      Here's a good way of thinking about the relative sizes:
      Code is 1 dimensional. Its just a straight line of instructions.
      Textures are 2 dimensional. You have color in a square array of pixels.
      Models are 3 dimensional. you have points in space combined to make polygons.
      Animations are 4 dimensional. You have points in space combined to make polygons moving as a function of time.


      See? The largest game code is like 5MB. Meanwhile, pictures (Textures) can easily be around 5MB, more for high resolution. Then Models are much, much bigger than that, and animations are MUCH, MUCH bigger than that.

      All the code is done server-side. Its purely rendering and controls on the client side, a very thin/dumb client. But rendering is pretty much EVERYTHING when it comes to both size and computing power of modern games. The actual game logic is trivial, and requires very little data, just some static values. Not the lookup tables you have for texture colors or model vertex positions.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    135. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I don't think one "finishes" Torchlight.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    136. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hackula · · Score: 1

      It is better than nothing.

    137. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but I am no-where close to knowing that. It seemed like it had a story that was going to some conclusion.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    138. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      And Battle.net had a whole bunch of server-side only stuff. It's called "packet sniffing". That doesn't leave out any potential for corporate espionage, either.

      Even if they can't get their hands on the actual stuff, the community can write emulators. See: World of Warcraft.

    139. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I possibly care that I might possibly only get 10 or 15 years of gameplay from somehting I paid $60 for?

      Because games are culture just like books, music and movies.
      The thought that our cultural heritage will start destroying itself should be repugnant to anyone who cares about either our past or our future.

    140. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

      OptOut, DMCA ... Congress (for a few decades now) has passed good oppression laws to invade privacy and manage the general public; While protecting the private sectors rights of wealthy corporate and elitist plutocrats. So, more of the same, what's the problem? More USA citizens (I suspect) will vote for more bigoted, fear mongering, platitude spewing, bull-shitting faux-patriots than will vote for someone intelligent and reasonable that looks to build a future, rather then wallow in the quagmire of the long past good old boys' days.

      What's the difference between a death-panel and no national health care law? I DONOT know, but the impact is (I suspect) the same. Same for education, hate, and lies it all has a nice political ring for the noses of fools and Plutocrat-Kings.

      --
      Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
    141. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      It's a complicated law. As I understand it, the exemptions to the access-control anticircumvention clause allow you to use the necessary tools, but you''re still prohibited from distributing such tools.

      That means that in the event of a Blizzard shutdown, you would be allowed to fire up a debugger and create a keygen yourself without breaking the law, but you would still be forbidden to give that keygen to anyone else. The game would disappear down the memory hole, just as predicted by many people when the DMCA was under consideration.

      Many confusing and ugly legal issues could have been avoided if Congress had forced authors to choose between private technological protection (DRM) and standard legal protection (copyright) for their works, without artificially tying them together.

    142. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Torodung · · Score: 2

      In this case, I'm pretty sure there is more than just activation/validation being processed on the servers. Certain aspects of item generation (read: loot drops) is not local to your machine, to prevent cloning/forgery/imbalance in the marketplace.

      So cracked Diablo III (if possible) is likely to be Diablo III without exclusive, sweet loot. There's no telling how much of the game is on the server, and replacing that server code is going to be far trickier than no-opping over some validation checks.

    143. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by black3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No - the client for WoW ships with all world data and quest data. This can be simply mined out of the data files. The only things the server handles are NPCs and items. This is what the emulated WoW servers perform. With D3, it's a matter of creating the randomized dungeon structures, handling the loot, handling all the mobs and all the quests, all the drop rates, all the items and their stats. It can't be mined from the game data as it's simply not available. No doubt once statistics are available for average drop rates, monster levels, rare spawn rates, etc, it'll be eventually possible to put together this data to create private servers which function fairly similar to the online experience. It's unlikely the random dungeon creation will ever be the same as we won't ever see their algorithms, but again - a savvy designer could figure out a decent enough algorithm to emulate the experience. The point is simply that its in no way as simple as it is with WoW.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    144. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It does, but the game keeps going. There is no bottom to the dungeon, nor limit on how high you can level your character.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    145. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Nyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, but if the company goes belly up in 15 years who is going to pay the lawyers to go after the hackers?

      Whomever bought the IP rights of the company for cheap when it goes belly up.

      What? You think Blizzard is going to go out of business without selling it's IP? You know nothing of business.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    146. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      Which of course means it is a single-player MMO, not an actual stand-alone game. Ah, the end of an era...

    147. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by black3d · · Score: 2

      BTW, Assassin's Creed is available DRM-free from GOG.com. http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/assassins_creed_directors_cut

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    148. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Nyder · · Score: 2

      Yeah; I don't know why people are assuming that Blizzard will shut down the D3 servers any time soon. They are pretty good about keeping their game servers alive.

      You are missing the point. The point is, if Blizzard shuts down servers, the game is unplayable (currently, lets see how it's crack goes). Diable II, that game is very playable without the internet, or a Blizzard server.

      Doesn't matter if Blizzard has NEVER shut down a server, the point is, if they do, the game is no longer playable. Not even the single player portion.

      Think about it.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    149. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plus 7.76GB is TINY for an MMO client, TOR is 30 odd GB I believe

    150. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Pre-ordered a copy a couple of weeks because a bunch of friends are also going to play it, despite me normally avoiding always-on DRM for single player games like the plague. Retail copy arrived today, get home to play. Had already preinstalled the game, put my retail code in via the website... And have spent literally the last hour (6.30 to 7.30pm UK time) trying to login to the bloody thing to play single player, nothing but error 37 and error 75.

      Fuck Blizzard for requiring always-on DRM, and then cheaping out on enough servers to meet demand. Fuck em right up the arse.

      They don't care, they already got your money.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    151. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

      On Windows 2112...

      --
      ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
    152. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A good way of thinking, but completely wrong. It would be true for voxel models - that is, storing every 3d-pixel occupied by model.

      Polygonal models are 1 dimensional - it's an array of vertex coordinates, both 3d coordinates and texture mapping coordinates, plus array of triangles (i.e. 3 indexes into vertex array), plus skeleton info - joints, bones and which vertexes are bound to which bone. Games rarely use more than 10-15k polygons per character, so all in all it comes out at around 0.5-1 Mb per model. Maps take more, but they are still just a fraction of their textures' size.

      Similarly, animations are arrays of skeleton positions at key frames, steps inbetween are interpolated. Single animation is tens of kilobytes range.

      Textures, on the other hand, are quite heavy - uncompressed 2048x2048 texture is 12-16Mb, and this is already "low-res" for modern AAA titles. You can calculate how much a 4k or a pretty 8k texture weighs for yourself. Consider also that every model uses at least 2 or 3 textures - for color, normal map and probably specularity map. That's your 8Gb right there.

    153. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How are they gonna come? With no mercy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    154. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jabelli · · Score: 1

      If I am recalling correctly, pre-Kunark and pre-research change, the two runes required to research Ice Comet dropped one from Lord Nagafen and one from Lady Vox. Later (Kunark era?) the Staff of the Wheel quest was added, which will give you one of each. Of course, you can bone the combine and have to do it all over again.

    155. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "It's a complicated law. As I understand it, "
      you could read the ,law. Just sayin' it isn't that complicated.

      " if Congress had forced authors to choose between private technological protection (DRM) and standard legal protection (copyright) for their works, without artificially tying them together."
      Right on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    156. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      OTOH, it will be years until a buy out occurs. During that time, many crack will come up, and there won't be anyone to pay for the lawyer to go after something that might not even hold up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    157. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      haha. Non Blizzard D3 servers will be running in a few months.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    158. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because there are only Blizzard games?
      Torchlight II is coming out, Legend of Grimrock , and many good games that don't depend on there competencies of some off site server admins to work.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    159. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Thor help us all if there isn't anything better in 15 years.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    160. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the last time you played was vanilla, private servers have come a long way since then (or it was just the server you were on). When all they had was BC my brothers were playing almost exclusively on private servers that seemed to work nicely.

    161. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes to the dragons, but you still had to research it. Dragons were hella hard, then you may have to do it again on failure. Oh , and hope for rune drops

    162. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Not to mention everyone here seems to be forgetting that D1 and D2 and their crazy support lengths were both PRE ACTIVISION BUYOUT and now that they are owned by a company with a giant douchenozzle for a CEO will that stay the same? Considering how Bobby Kotick looks at his customers with such contempt that typing his name into google the first search that popped up was "Bobby Kotick is the devil" really doesn't give me much warm fuzzies when it comes to the lifespan for D3.

      This man has made it clear he will milk a franchise for every plug nickel he can squeeze out of the property and having long support lengths (unless he decides to charge monthly like an MMO) simply won't fit into his "maximize monetiziation potential fuck the customers and make them pay" attitude. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't end up treating the property like EA Sports, where they kill the servers after a year and a half so you'll have to buy the latest version.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    163. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Interesting. That's the behavior of the WoW live patcher. I guess it makes sense they're repurpose that.

      I guess I have to wonder how much DIII is the WoW engine with the serial numbers filed off. Or, to speak more professionally, I wonder what their reuse efficiency factors are.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    164. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Diablo I servers are still up, after 15 years.

    165. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      But will anything really change?

      I doubt it. But anything that gets Average Joe and Jane starting to notice something the tech community has been railing against all along isn't a bad thing.

    166. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      But once again, I think the people who will pay the price are the honest gamers who are going to be forced into piracy some day just to play the game they actually paid for.

      What do you mean some day?

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    167. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Doubtful - it appears a chunk of the content is stored on the server, like characters, armor, weapons, etc. My guess is all about the auction house and generating revenue, so it is not in Blizzard's best interest to patch it. Blizzard has said that Battle.Net has always been profitable, presumably through advertising (to be honest, I haven't checked in the years just before WoW was rolled in, but that was always the case in the Diablo 2 days).

    168. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 2

      HAHAHHAAHa.
      Straight from Wikipedia. Yeah. Activision sure doesn't pressure them on accounts, of growth. Nope not at all~

      Hint: No one buys a company to NOT control it in some way.

      Riddle me this, Batman:
      How and activisionBlizzard be separate companies when it has the same ticker ? ATVI

      http://www.activisionblizzard.com/corp/index.html

      and the annual report:
      http://investor.activision.com/annuals.cfm

      Tell me how you can read those and thing they are completely separate? Clearly Activision publishing has input into blizzard delivery.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    169. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I did. It occurred to me that I don't care.
      I have a drawer full of games I loved..but don't play. Blizzards history indicates that it will be going for at least as long I will be playing it.

      If they want to cut their own throats later, then so be it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    170. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I still play games (and do a lot of other things) on my 26 year old Amiga 500. Built a new PSU for it last night. Skullphuck DRM.

    171. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 0

      Here is a clue.

      How about you don't buy it shut up about it, and move on with your life?
      You are an insignificant spec that will change nothing. So go do something and keep you vitriol to yourself.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    172. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No it won't. Diablo III's always on DRM is achieved by running your single player game on the server. Your copy of the game is literally incapable of running without a Battle.Net server to run the realm for it. It's like single player WoW.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    173. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      SC2 has no lan play

      it has, but you need an 'unofficial client'

    174. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Auroch · · Score: 1

      And it will still be illegal to create the crack, since Diablo III will presumably still be under copyright by the time Blizzard pulls the plug.

      Er... the interoperability clause is part of copyright law, so no, it wouldn't be illegal at that point.

      .. You know what else? It's a world wide game, and we're debating US copyright laws.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    175. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, Dictionaries are for everyone:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affection

      Please tell me why I can't have a fondness for a game.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    176. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Vanilla being upwards of 5 years ago (BC was released in January 2007)...

      WoW is continually being reworked. Heck, I can only think of one non-Raid zone in the WoW old world that is identical to its vanilla version, and that would be Silithus.

      You say this as if cataclysm wasn't created INTENTIONALLY to do this. It'd be one thing if blizzard systematically changed all the assets slowly, to prevent knockoff servers. But no, they didn't. They shoehorned their anti-piracy efforts into a $60 upgrade. Congratulations, you just paid them to do something they should have done on their own to combat piracy.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    177. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if Blizzard has NEVER shut down a server, the point is, if they do, the game is no longer playable. Not even the single player portion.

      Think about it.

      ... Now, with the knowledge that they havn't pulled support for D2 over the last 12 years, you're not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and you immediately suspect that they'll pull support asap? Because that hasn't been my experience with blizzard so far, and until they break faith with me, I'll keep supporting them.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    178. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Auroch · · Score: 1

      There used to be a Mac game called Spectre, (It ran on MacOS 6 and 7 to date myself some). It was a simple tank game where you shot from a fixed forward facing gun, and used the arrow keys for controls. Hmm, that makes a total of 5 keys. But the simplicity of that game made it accessible to anyone, and therefore we could build up big team games. We'd blow off an hour or two between classes. In some ways, this is still the most fun I've had gaming, able to bring everyone in, no matter their skill level.

      Obviously you're talking about "fun" that is derived from the players, not the game.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    179. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Activision didn't buy Blizzard. Vivendi bought Activision, and merged it into Vivendi Games to create Activision Blizzard Inc, of which Activision Publishing Inc and Blizzard Entertainment Inc are both subsidiaries.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    180. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Its not harm. Don't buy the game

      I won't. However, at the same time, don't pretend that people can't criticize a game's developers while at the same time telling them why they're boycotting the product.

      but DO shut the fuck up like it's some crime against humanity.

      I suggest not putting words into my mouth.

      I simply despise DRM.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    181. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't. Please buy a different game.

      AS a bonus, it would be nice if you , and everyone else, shot Blizzard an email that you would have bought it if there was an option for local LAN.

      Granted, that would basically requires a separate game.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    182. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the Steam pack gives you not only Torchlight II but TL I as well! I hope it'll be coming out soon as my youngest has a BDay coming up and having me and his brother join in for a big loot fest across the net sounds like a blast! Go Torchlight!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    183. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Look at me bitching about people bitching about DRM!". I think I saw a few more comments like this from you on this page, you're quite passionate about it, aren't you? Go do something and keep you vitriol to yourself, right. Well, of course, you're as entitled to bitching about our bitching as we are entitled to bitching about DRM.

      See, the problem with "shut up and don't buy" is that it encourages companies to do more of the same shit. People raging about DRM will at least to some degree turn out more customers and get noticed by producers - well, /. is not a best place for this, probably. Silently ignoring just lets more people unknowingly walk into buying this shit.

    184. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I was talking to Future Man the other day and he let slip that the first FiveSense(tm) MMORGY to be released caused a truly epic crash of the world's economy. On the bright side, no one noticed.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    185. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Pre Activision Buyout? But Activision never bought Blizzard... oh, you're referring to when Vivendi bought Activision, and made it and Blizzard subsidiaries of Activision Blizzard, formerly known as Vivendi Games. Mike Morhaime is still in charge at Blizzard, and Kotick still has to answer to the shareholders anyway (the same shareholders that were apparently told that Activision and Blizzard would retain autonomy).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    186. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Grismar · · Score: 1

      Your remark begs the question whether my country would actually extradite someone for a copyright infringement or something of the sort.

      Actually, I seriously doubt any country would, unless it's an excuse to extradite someone who cannot be extradited on other grounds. So, no, U.S. law does not apply everywhere and most people get by fine without ever visiting the U.S.

    187. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Question: who does blizzard CEO answer to, and who sets strategic goals as well as general policies in the company.

      Hint: not an employee of a company that starts with a B.

    188. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it is NEVER the pirates that get bit in the ass by this, its the players who paid good money. For everyone who wants to see a player getting bit in the ass by DRM in just watch this video (warning language NSFW) and watch as someone who bought a $60 game finds out how DRM bites.

      BTW look at his shelves behind him, there are thousands of dollars worth of legitimate games, more than half of which he says no longer work because of DRM. I have found this out as well, because ever since I switched to 64 bits with Win XP X64 in 2006 I have found many of my games won't work, not because they won't run on a 64 bit OS, but because the shitty DRM doesn't. Oh a word of warning...DO NOT install older Starforce and SecuROM games on a 64 bit OS without cracking it before first launch! I have found that some versions of SecuROM and Starforce will try to embed 32 bit kernel hooks into a 64 bit kernel for disastrous stability and crashing problems. Oh and their "removal tools" WILL NOT WORK on a 64 bit OS! If you don't have a recent image backup or another OS to boot into so you can scrub it like malware (which it is) then you are fucked.

      this is why I'm telling those that ask about D3 to buy Torchlight II instead. Not only is it a better deal, with Steam offering BOTH TL I & II for $20 or a 4 pack for $60, but it doesn't require always on Internet just to play SP.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    189. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "as we have seen over and over AND OVER....the pirate version will be better."

      Depends on the game. For example, pirated copies of Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas will not work with the community script extenders, which are necessary for a lot of the more interesting mods.

    190. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      15 years down the road, if they take the servers down will anyone care? Will anyone even remember this post?

      I really dont think that it matters. If you havent gotten $60 worth of entertainment out of the game in 15 years time, then you might care.. but I wont care that you care because obviously something isnt right with you.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    191. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      You are talking about the company that Patched in NoCD cracks at the end of life for older games (diablo 2). Somehow, i suspect that when the time comes, and Diablo 3 servers no longer make the company enough money to bother with them, they will patch the login feature out in some way.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    192. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.

      Is the mood of your writing blank irony, blankly ironic?

      --
      blog
    193. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      What am I wrong about? It'd be more helpful if you pointed out something. Especially if you could cite how I'm wrong.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    194. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoever buys their IP

    195. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by G00F · · Score: 1

      Boycott! Vote with your wallet, no lan, no fully local and complete install, stop giving them your money!

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    196. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by tirefire · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if down the road they patched Diablo III to no longer require an internet connection.

      I'm pretty confident that's exactly what they'll do in a few years. The day they do that, I will buy at least 1 copy for myself, and possibly more for friends to use at LAN parties or such (screw battle.net, the real Diablo fun goes on entirely in people's basements).

      The longer they wait, the lower the price will be when I buy it. So what's it going to be, Blizzard? Want me to give you $50 now or $20 a few years later? I'll be looking at patch logs to see what your answer is.

    197. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by BDZ · · Score: 1

      There is Open Mule.

      http://www.codenautics.com/openmule/

      It runs on Windows and Macs...There is an announcement about a coming Linux version, but that was back in 2007. So might very well be that no one is actively working on the game anymore.

    198. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is what they say, but, maybe they are not telling the whole truth and a crack may be available at some time, look at assassins creed for example. Just don't download any crack/patch for offline play unless it comes from a "trusted" source, the ones you will find the following months are just viruses in disguise.

    199. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by smash · · Score: 1

      ... plus any countries that have bought into the "free trade agreement" BS.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    200. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by smash · · Score: 1

      Blizzard go belly up? Hah. If they put only 5-10% of their monthly WOW income in the bank they'll have a war-chest able to sustain them for a very long time. Never mind any new products they produce.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    201. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point for justice,
      Blizzard did (eventually) remove the CD checks for Starcraft and (afaik) Diablo II in their updates.
      Yes, obviously they want control for monetization but more importantly to keep those cheating ****tards from ruining everyones time.
      Being a title that includes RMT, i doubt you will ever need to worry about a belly-up situation where the servers go dark, unless the playerbase is already so depleted it no longer keeps the lights on, and whats the point of playing it then anyway?

    202. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Trubacca · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think the relevant facet of this conversation involves their new cash auction-house revenue stream. While eliminating piracy is probably a very appealing notion to them, it alone doesn't justify such a ridiculous notion as an online-only single-player game. On the other hand, the only way their auction house will realize any value is by preventing the "dupes and haxx" and I can think of no surer way of providing that security than by separating the user from the most important parts of the program and tightly controlling the experience from their end. It could even stand to make Blizzard quite a bit of money, though they made a serious mistake that would ruin a lesser-company: the price point. From my perspective (I haven't played it), if the entire game is modeled to support the auction house in a way that diminishes the user experience then it shouldn't be treated and priced like a full game.. especially if you don't own a playable copy of the game after purchasing it. In which case it would seem to make a lot more sense to set it up as a freemium, free-to-play kind of thing.. vastly widening the audience and the participation in their auction house. I would be all over that. Their loss.. this seems like a game designed by committee, lacking the courage and fortitude to actually embrace any one vision or another.

      Notice that I have refused to address any of the allegations of dated graphics or diluted gameplay.. I haven't played it, and I probably won't. Personally, I have been really digging an old-school diablo 2 clone called Path of Exile that is currently in closed beta.. Lots of fun, highly recommended to any D2 fans lamenting a sequel they will never get. While it is online only as well, their model is looking pretty tight: free-to-play with an in-game store that will only sell cosmetic and non-gameplay related items, like extra character or storage slots. You can buy into the beta by purchasing store credit.. and it was totally worth it. IMHO.

    203. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by smash · · Score: 1

      Torchlight held my interest for about 2 hrs, tops. It doesn't look anywhere near as good as D3, and the character classes just didn't engage me at all.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    204. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by symbolset · · Score: 1

      They work around this by saying that you are working in concert with others. That makes it a MEGA CONSPIRACY. And conspiracy to commit copyright infringement is apparently a much bigger deal that your country WILL extradite you for.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    205. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It wouldn't surprise me if down the road they patched Diablo III to no longer require an internet connection."

      That will be the day i buy diablo 3.

    206. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      It's mostly identical. Quest data is on the client, as is item data, and reversing the netcode will explain the available flags on items allowing for an easy enough implementation of randomized items with the different modifiers we see in-game (I've done this in my own emulator for other games with randomized items, it's very simple). Drop rates and stats are not published in the WoW client, these are values approximated by data mining techniques, and WoW pservers pride themselves on the accuracy or quality of their database (which includes these drop rates) and the quality of scripted encounters and monster AI. Spawn types, locations, rates, etc are all similar, not present in the client but mined and used server-side by an emulator. One would create tools to edit these in any moderately professional reproduction.

      The only thing that's really difficult to reproduce is level randomization, and it's only relatively difficult. There are many publicly available terrain generation algorithms, and from what I've played in the D3 beta, the levels aren't completely randomized, they're just a few calls to an RNG for each piece with special pieces placed randomly. Think of it like building out a map tree with an entrance, different areas, connecting paths, and primary goal areas (minigames, next-level dungeons, or portals outside of the dungeon). Each one of these map pieces fits together with several others like a puzzle, so one would merely need to construct a graph of all connected pieces for a given dungeon and then build a level tree of some randomized depth and fill it with pieces with one of the leaves containing a primary goal node. There are other subtleties, but that really seems to be about it. That'd be the most difficult part of actually implementing the emulator, getting that part right so the game feels the same. But I really don't think it's even slightly as difficult as you seem to think it is. The hardest part of a game like D3 from an engineering standpoint would be handling the intense load it does (as it's 100% online now) and the massive amounts of content in it. The network protocol and interaction between a login/bnet/game server and the client is surely only minescule compared to the enormity of the game as a whole.

      I expect to see fully functioning emulators for D3, and when this happens, either Blizzard will sue them into "nonexistence" like bnetd, or they will fold and give us a LAN-type play as was available in D2. I'd bet they'd sue before giving the community something they want, though. When you reach a certain level of capital, you just don't care what your customers think anymore.

    207. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's why I am not buying it. I loved the original Diablos.

      If they think I am going to pay that much money for a frontend and not have the game 5-10 years later they are smoking something.

      I would not buy a book, song, or movie like that (and neither would most people) so why the hell is software somehow exempt?

    208. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention, but when these emulators are released, likely as open source, Blizzard will be a step behind. We'll be able to create our own mods to the game and enjoy it far more than vanilla. To match and better the emulators, they'd have to let us create custom games much like they have with other battle.net games in the past. This is likely one reason they'll just sue rather than do better.

      And unfortunately, since Blizzard and recent SCOTUS rulings have paved the way, we'll be unlikely able to use such an emulator legally because it will violate the game's EULA, so even though it's enforcing an interoperability exclusion that has been used in the past to rule that things like no-CD cracks that are intended to make the lawful copy and unfettered use of a copyright work possible are legal, we'll once again be screwed out of rights guaranteed by copyright law because of this plague that's sweeping the software world called "licensing" which gives companies carte blanche to write their own laws, essentially, even though they've almost unilaterally been unconscionable and horribly biased towards one party, SCOTUS et al continue to uphold them as legal. So I say fuck Blizzard and when they come out, I'll be one of the millions to run a pirated copy to play with my friends.

    209. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth. Private servers are always bad. Besides how many quests don't work at all, bugs that were fixed years ago in the real version are sometimes present, and a lot of an MMORPG is that there's a real sense of long-term gain or achievement. When that gain is not relative to the other people who play the game, there's very little reason to play these games at all.

    210. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, Battle.net for Diablo and Diablo 2 was free. In Diablo 3 you have the "Real Money Store" and "more-money-slot-machines-to-come" for people to keep paying the serious dough.

    211. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Blizzard is one of the few companies that allow you to install the same copy of the game on multiple computers for LAN parties.

      As we all know, Diablo III is widely lauded for its excellent support for spawn copies. Right?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    212. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said nothing of the sort, and you know it.

      You made up that lie because you know that you are too stupid to find any flaws in what he really said.

      You are screaming at your monitor right now because you are enraged at me for forcing you to face that undeniable fact.

    213. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by crimoid · · Score: 1

      Having owned (and legally bought) D1, D2, the D2LoD, Starcraft, and Starcraft 2 I can honestly say that Blizzard packs enough value into their games (and supports them long after they need) that they've built up a reservoir of trust with their fans that I doubt they'll want to jeopardize. The fact that you can still plan D2 online 12 years after it was released is pretty amazing. Given the near ubiquitous access to broadband by gamers I don't fear need to be required to be online.

    214. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOTRO clocks in at well over 12GB so its small by comparison :)

    215. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by batkiwi · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about:
      -textures take up more space than models. Models are simply a list of 3 points.
      -animations will often take up less space than models depending on the model/animation system. Most are now bone/etc based, so an animation isn't multiple copies of the same model, it's instructions applied to the base model.
      -code is very small, but a lot more than 5MB

    216. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by vell0cet · · Score: 1

      I don't really care about 10 or 15 years from now. I would however, like to play it now. Unfortunately, I can't because the authentication servers are down.

      They were down last night. I got to play a little before I left for work. But that's it.

    217. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have imagined the random dungeon generation being client based by a server given seed. Sending all the map data every time a new dungeon is created seems unlikely.

    218. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, it won't be that simple.
      We can hope for at least one of 2 things:
      1) Blizzard is hacked and their server code is grabbed (lots of these cases for big-name companies).
      2) Many hours of tcpdump/wireshark and figuring out the protocol and reverse engineering at least a simple server.

    219. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by KronicD · · Score: 1

      One simple reason, single player.

      --
      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
    220. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      You're wrong about: -textures take up more space than models. Models are simply a list of 3 points. -animations will often take up less space than models depending on the model/animation system. Most are now bone/etc based, so an animation isn't multiple copies of the same model, it's instructions applied to the base model. -code is very small, but a lot more than 5MB

      Wrong. By your logic Textures are simply a list of color values. So? Did you mean to say a list of 3D points? Because its not just three points lol, its a great deal many of them. It depends upon the poly count, but then again your texture resolution is as well. But there's a lot of points.
      You're pulling these numbers out of nowhere and you're wrong. A 512x512 game texture is going to be in the kilobytes. A player model is going to be in the megabytes. Entire factors of 10 off from each other.

      And most game executables are indeed about 5MB, even for AAA games. Maybe more like 10-20MB for really modern games? And okay, if we want to include all the .dlls, we're talking another 10-20MB. But those .dlls could be loaded into your system already somewhere else, so those don't count as the game size. Code is just a series of binary instructions, its extremely small once compiled. The entire game really is like 10MB. Go check.

      By comparison, we were saying a single texture was a few kb, and a single model was a few mb. You then consider the thousands and thousands of textures and models needed in a modern game, and thats where all your gigabytes of game data come from. Art assets. Its never code. Code is tiny.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    221. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by raynet · · Score: 1

      There is no monetization or cheating to be controlled on single player. They should have used similar setup as with Diablo II where you could play single player, or with friends with your own server (cheating very possible) and on the official servers.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    222. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Viceice · · Score: 1

      Tell that to SCO.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    223. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      It's not about the "$60 worth of entertainment", it's about the fact that a scumbag company can flip a switch and destroy your personal property.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    224. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I don't want Blizzard to FOAD, I simply want it to return to being Old Blizzard that was dedicated to it's customers as opposed to the New Blizzard that actively hates it's paying customers.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    225. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the new golden age of PC gaming is here. Indie devs are making an astonishing number of remarkable games. I'm disappointed I won't be playing D3, for sure - but I'll get over it with Grimrock, Minecraft, Wasteland 2, Torchlight 2, X-COM... just to name a few. It won't hurt Activision, but I've quietly passed on this and probably all future Blizzard games.

      We'll always have Blackthorne, Bliz.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    226. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      This means I've missed out on every Assassin's Creed game since the original and a few other titles to boot.

      FYI, Good Old Games (gog.com) has the Directors Cut of Assassin's Creed for $19.99 - no DRM. That's where I've been buying most of my games lately, because I refuse to pay to be ass-raped with DRM. I got burned by Apple when iTunes first came out - never again will I touch anything with DRM.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    227. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Torvac · · Score: 1

      im glad i checked out the beta ,and then canceled my preorder after i noticed the failed online check. if thats the answer to piracy, then pirating i will. long gone are the days where we bought 4 copies and set up our own dedicated servers for games we liked.

    228. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Prepare to see that change if they decide too many people are still playing Diablo II and not enough are playing Diablo III.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    229. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Heh, you rant about DRM and then say you encourage people to buy from Steam. [DarthVader_Voice]The irony is strong with this one[/DarthVader_Voice].

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    230. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Most things I have bought have broken or failed in some way within 15 years

      Stop buying shit and start buying quality products. That includes not buying DRM-laden games.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    231. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      You don't consider forcefully taking away someone's property that they paid for to be harm? In that case, you'd better not be locking your doors or calling the police when you've been robbed or you're a hypocrite.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    232. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except under the DMCA cracking the game would still be illegal.

      At this time we have no legal recourse to play a game if the DRM servers are taken down. Even in 15 years, they can still come after you for pirating the game if they wanted to.

      One thing which Blizzard has done right in this regard is to use their battle.net servers as the "DRM authentication" servers, so even if the rest of the game servers go down you'll still be able to authenticate for offline play. They have also claimed they will release a patch if they ever do shutter the servers.

    233. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Except that the game itself is actually mostly run remotely. Your character is animated client side, but monsters, loot drops etc. are all calculated by the servers and sent to you ... not computed locally. So merely cracking the client isn't going to help - you would have to emulate the server as well.

      For all intents and purposes D3 is a multiplayer game, not a single-player game. It just so happens that you can play by yourself (same as if you logged onto an MMO server and noone else happened to be on). At any time, someone else can log in and instantly join your game.

      Plus the fact that all items are generated and stored server-side should at least nip item hacks in the bud.

    234. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of cut scenes and and an absolute shit ton of audio files (every NPC's speech in the game, usually completely different for each of the 5 classes). 7.6 GB seems pretty right to me for all that. Hell if I compare it to the Aion MMO client I also have on my hard drive, which is 21 GB but contains virtually no video/cutscene material and nowhere near as much dialogue, 7 gigs seems light.

    235. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I don't know why everyone's talking about DRM. This isn't DRM ... it's not stopping you copying anything. Hell they put up the full client on their website for free. It's an online game that requires a server to run, that's all. It's like complaining than an MMO requires "always online" (well no kidding...!)

      Virtually the whole game is run on the server ... the randomised level generation, mob spawning, pathing and behaviour, loot (as you say), even quest dialog ... EVERYTHING is done server-side. You might not like it done that way, but it's not DRM, it's just that the whole game is online. There are good reasons for this too (namely preventing item hacks/dupes and preserving the integrity of the market, which is doubly important now that there's a real-money AH), but 'DRM' or preventing people copying things or playing for free is NOT one those reasons.

    236. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....Go on single player to dupe items then sell them for real money on the RMAH?

    237. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It's like complaining than an MMO requires "always online" (well no kidding...!)

      No. It's not comparable to an MMO. In this game, there is a single player mode (unlike an MMO). However, it requires you to be online.

      You might not like it done that way, but it's not DRM, it's just that the whole game is online.

      Wow. That could be said about any online DRM scheme. Even Ubisoft's.

      It is DRM. It's an arbitrary requirement created for the purposes of stopping pirates (cheats/hacks/boogeyman of the week). I do not consider it anything but DRM, and I can't believe certain people here are defending it (actually, I can).

      Actually, I don't even care what you call it. I'll call it "idiotic."

      There are good reasons for this too

      People keep mentioning these "good reasons," but I will never believe it's justified to harm your entire customer base to get at these alleged cheaters.

      Also, there are other ways to go about that. They could simply separate online and offline accounts. It's that simple.

      but 'DRM' or preventing people copying things or playing for free is NOT one those reasons.

      I highly doubt that. If their sole goal was to prevent hacks, they could have simply not allowed people who chose not to store their characters on Blizzard's servers to use those characters online. But they didn't.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    238. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      But the main reason for D3 being ready for so long and being so long in the making was figuring out a drm scheme. That's whats taking time with the next StarCraft game as well.

      Are you aware that D3 uses the same engine that StarCraft does?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    239. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's drm.

      they did the only thing they did to enhance drm: move essential game logic to machines they control. everything else would have been cracked faster than they could have shipped the pre-orders. the purpose is drm - for singleplayer gameplaywise it's not necessary at all to have this server infrastructure, they could easily have added a singleplayer only gamemode where you could have used offline characters and played offline and have the online enhanced shitfest as optional. the purpose is to control what you do with the game code or can't do with it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    240. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diablo 2 required you to have your original Diablo 2 CD in the drive to play ... it took about 8 years, but Blizzard did finally release a patch that removed that requirement!

      You can expect the internet requirement to also be patched out ... eventually, you just need to be patient!

    241. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by value · · Score: 1

      though why our goverment allow and support rendition, I cannot fathom

      File-sharing for slaves, slave-sharing for politicians...

    242. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Xest · · Score: 1

      "It would take somebody to code something emulating a Blizzard D3 server with quite some logic."

      Seeing as just about every MMO with a closed source server has had cloned servers created I doubt it'll be too difficult, nor too unlikely.

      Google for Ultima Online server source, Everquest server source, Dark Age of Camelot server source, WoW server source - they've all been done.

    243. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      No. The program could never run without a server. I see a few people saying that they won't buy the game.

      But if you do, you buy knowing that without a server your game is useless.

    244. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer nothing than D3 or SC2 installed on my laptop. At least I can then use the space for something useful.
      Try playing SC2 on an oil rig or an ocean going ship or some other place without easy internet access (we can use email from a crew PC) and lots of spare time.
      I can play D2, SC1 and other games with friends on a LAN. We shouldn't need an internet link to play single player or as a local group.

    245. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by stiggle · · Score: 1

      You can reach the end of the main quest sequence down the mine which I suppose could be classed as "finished" but there are still other quests and the random dungeons you can work through.

    246. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Assassin's Creed always was. Assassin's Creed 2 onwards had always-on DRM, and required an account with their online service (Origin, I think. I didn't pay much attention before quitting and uninstalling the game).

      -1 reading comprehension points.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    247. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a lawyer writing on behalf on Lucasfilm Ltd. We have been informed that you were using the conceptual idea of Darth Vader's (TM) voice.

      Lucas trademarks, logos, images, service marks, trade names and other distinctive branding features used by Star Wars are the trademarks of Lucas and may not be used without permission. Lucas is not granting you a license under any intellectual property right to the Star Wars.

    248. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The only thing that's really difficult to reproduce is level randomization, and it's only relatively difficult. There are many publicly available terrain generation algorithms, and from what I've played in the D3 beta, the levels aren't completely randomized, they're just a few calls to an RNG for each piece with special pieces placed randomly.

      It's also important to note that the randomization of Diablo is really quite meaningless. I can't recall ever playing through a Baal run and going, "Wow, this one layout is totally boss!" You can hardcode a few cookie cutter recipes for building "random" maps and nobody would notice. Daggerfall had a much more memorable random dungeon generator.

      Given how popular Diablo 3 is, it's only a matter of time before server emulators exist.

    249. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>It's still fun. The problem is, you have to actually play the game rather than spend your time bitching about things that don't really matter.

      *Gaming* is still fun.

      Diablo 3 isn't, even when you can play it. It's actually... boring.

    250. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Heck, before Diablo 3 was announced, they actually rebuilt the Mac Diablo 2 app so that it would run natively on OS X, so that people could go back and play it again.

      That was 10 years after they were done with D2.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    251. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by nhat11 · · Score: 0

      So you get pissed at people for trying to fix an issue?

    252. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And WHY is that ironic? Steam is about as 'effective' a DRM as the old CD checks were, which is just enough to keep Billy Bob from just slapping the games on a flash and handing it out to his buddies but on any crack site they have cracks for the steam version of any game, just like they do for the retail box. You also don't have to be online 24/7 and moreover they actually give you something extra for your money, namely built in patching, chat, and matchmaking which makes it beyond simple for you to hop into a game with friends instead of strangers. No need to show them about IP addresses or how to add exceptions to their firewall, it all "just works".

      so I don't see any irony at all friend, in fact the ONLY complaints I have about Steam is 1.-There is no easy way in their Steam lists to open a new tab in client so one can see whether the game has third party DRM or not so you pretty much have to use your browser for large lists and 2.- There isn't a way to set a checkbox on my client that will tell my friends when they try to buy me a game as a gift "This person asks that only Steam games (no third party DRM) be gifted to them". But other than those 2 little nits I have had no problem with Steam and if they ever acted like dicks (which to my knowledge they have NEVER banned anyone who wasn't cheating in game and ruining it for everyone else) it wouldn't take me 5 minutes to have every single Steam game I have cracked. Can YOU say the same about D3? or Origin? or any other system currently employed on AAA gaming?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    253. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Kotick is not crazy enough to kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Could Blizzard pull the plug on DIII after a few years? Yes. But it would permanently damage their brand. And they likely have the most valuable brand in gaming right now.

    254. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by crazyjj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your remark begs the question whether my country would actually extradite someone for a copyright infringement or something of the sort. Actually, I seriously doubt any country would

      IIRC, New Zealand, Britain, and France have all done it. So I wouldn't make that assumption so quickly.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    255. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by lipanitech · · Score: 1

      I hope they release how many billion it cost to develop.

    256. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who would sacrifice essential functionality for temporary security deserve neither.

      That quote doesnt exactly apply here, but thanks for trying.

      The point the person is trying to make is: D2 gave players excessive control and it was taken advantage of. The pendulum has now swung and Blizzard has learned its lesson. Blizzard now assumes all control of the game with servers to try and prevent dupes, item hacks, char mods etc. You are now paying the price for the sins of your predacessors.

    257. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please learn about homonyms, punctuation and when to use capitalization. Your post hurt my eyes, so I have no idea if it was even cogent.

    258. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by daid303 · · Score: 1

      People have done so for Ragnarok Online. Which does not ship with any information about monster stats/quests or anything. They simply reverse engineered, and rebuild it all. (Fun fact, the free servers performed better then the official ones)

    259. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because none of the bought game IP has been left to rot, ever!

    260. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is ironic because Steam is still a form of DRM, regardless of how easy it is to crack.

      When you say you're ok with DRM you can easily crack, you're only further fueling the "you just want free stuff" stereotype that gets pushed around by the companies/shills.

      If you truly have principles against DRM, then IMNSHO you should have ZERO tolarence for DRM, even ones which are easily broken like Steam and CD checks. Doing that would show a stronger message then just boycotting DRM that you don't like/can't crack. Avoid ALL DRM, even ones you can crack.

    261. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Supermike68 · · Score: 1

      Question: who does blizzard CEO answer to, and who sets strategic goals as well as general policies in the company.

      Hint: not an employee of a company that starts with a B.

      Michael Morhaime (Blizzard Entertainment CEO) reports to René Penisson (Vivendi Games).

      You're right, it doesn't start with a 'B' but it still isn't Activision. Any other questions?

    262. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      There's still the "Real Money" auction house.

      If you find rare loot in singleplayer, you can sell it for in-game gold, or real currency. So there's still a buy/sell interaction built into the singleplayer game that needs to be controlled since it is still tied to the overall trading economy.

    263. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Hey, I remember Spectre! I wasted a lot of hours in college playing that game when I should have been doing homework. Good stuff.

    264. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can sell single player stuff on the auction house, maybe "single player" is a misnomer

      Maybe they should have said "Diablo 3 has NO single player component, everybody's connected to the online auction house (and other bnet services that might exist), but you're free to host a private game and play by yourself"

    265. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Broderbund. Just saying their name invokes memories of "the good ol' days" - the Ancient Art of War, Print Shop Pro, Prince of Persia, Lode Runner, Carmen SanDiego. Wow, that was really a great company..... so was Bullfrog. Ah nostalgia

    266. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      If your biggest concern, in 10 or 15 years, is that you wasted money on a video game that you only got to play for about 60 to 120 hours but can no longer play because Blizzard goes out of business, congratulations! Most of us are too busy worrying about if the planet will even be habitable by then.

      Then again, maybe you've built an underground nuclear fallout shelter, and desperately are looking for Diablo III to be your sole source of entertainment.

    267. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by toddmbloom · · Score: 0

      No one is "paying the price". Seriously, quit whining about DRM already. It's just annoying.

    268. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Result in a ban. From my single-player game.

      That's fantastic.

    269. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by raynet · · Score: 1

      Auction house doesn't prevent offline single player mode. It would just mean that you cannot use the single player character on those auctions, like with Diablo 2 you couldn't use single player characters on the battle.net servers.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    270. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure. For stuff that's reallt important to me, I'm happy to pay more to get somehting that I can pass on to my children. Games simply aren't that important, nor IMO should they be.

      On the practical side, a CD won't last forever either - it can be destroyed by children, pets, or asshole roomates, it can be scratched in normal use, shit happens in life. When you buy it, there's a risk it will be lost. When you buy a game online, there's a risk the hosting company will shut down. Which risk is worse? Obviously that depends on the company and the circumstances of your life.

      I'm still astounded that so many /.er see DRM for games as some sort of moral wrong. A practical consideration when buying a game? Sure. But morally? The game's creators have rights too.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    271. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Bobby Kotick disagrees rather strongly. So does Mike Morhaime himself.

      Kotick is the CEO of Activision Blizzard. Mike Morhaime is chief of Blizzard part of the company and reports directly to CEO.

    272. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      The official story is that true offline SP mode was eliminated so that all characters could participate in co-op. (Diablo 2 had two separate types of character, though you probably already knew that; one stored on the machine, the other stored on the Battle.net server. However, you could still play single-player Battle.net games.) I have a little trouble believing that this freedom is such a burden that it needed to be taken away—if Blizzard was really as legitimately surprised at the fan backlash as they claim, there must have been some severe Steve Jobs-style minimalism behind the wheel.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    273. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ColdSam · · Score: 1

      Since you knew the servers would suck in the first few weeks why didn't you just wait to play the game until things settled down? It seems your complaint is as equally vacuous as the one you criticize.

      Everyone knows that the game might not be playable in 10 years and everyone knows that the service will be spotty at first. If you still choose to plunk down your $60 then you've made a conscious decision to accept both probabilities.

    274. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still astounded that so many /.er see DRM for games as some sort of moral wrong.

      It's not that astounding. According to many, they're long time gamers. In other words, they're old geezers, so it's natural for them to be yammering about "back in the day" and "get off my lawn" ;P

    275. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What retail game that came out 15 years ago are you still playing?

    276. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't.

    277. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      I dunno.... with so much of the logic (like, nearly all of it; even more than WoW) locked down server-side* it seems like it'd be easier to just write a new game with the same interface and textures than patch an existing client. Maybe they could just install a local version of the server logic in a patch? I dunno... but it seems really, really nasty, considering how stupid the client currently is.

      *My guess is they've done this to make absolutely sure the real-money AH is "secure". My guess is also that the AH's had serious issues on release day anyway, which is why they're still down at the time of this post.

    278. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Supermike68 · · Score: 1
      On July 9, 2008, Activision officially merged with Vivendi Games, culminating in the inclusion of the Blizzard brand name in the title of the resulting holding company, though Blizzard Entertainment remains a separate entity with independent management. Found here.

      Robert Kotick has nothing to do with business of Blizzard. Activision's business ethics have no influence on Blizzard Entertainment.

    279. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      It's also too soon to really know what's causing many of this issues because the servers have been so erratic. What I thought was my stupid PK5000 router from CenturyLink was actually "emergency maintenence".

      I wonder if Leoric is STILL flailing away on my poor Demon Hunter, and I know I'll be clearing a couple of cathedral levels tonight. I ended up just re-playing through act one using the European realms; I may just continue on that way since I don't really care about the RMAH (maybe if I thought I could dedicate the time to start up a D3 Item Brokerage... blah).

      However, some stuff IS known and documented. For example, I LOVED the bug that boots you all the way to client login when you equip a shield on your [get this] shield using NPC templar. It's funny, too, that people were not prepared to deal with this (note: being "prepared" doesn't mean you have to be "happy"). Tthe whole thing feels like perfectly synced deja vu of the Diablo 2 launch a decade ago.

    280. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, New Zealand, Britain, and France have all done it. So I wouldn't make that assumption so quickly.

      And where are China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and many other Asian countries? I am wondered how much the total in proportion of IP theft in these countries compared to those countries you mentioned...

    281. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by headLITE · · Score: 1

      Well, you *should* play another game. This one is sold as an online multiplayer game, apparently you're looking for something else.

    282. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "Separate entity with entirely independent management" as in their managers won't be fired and replaced with activision's.

      Not as in "company CEO won't be telling you what to do and you get to choose how to do it". Just that Blizzard's own managerial structure stays the same. Until Kotick tells them otherwise (which he already openly admitted he did, with his "bringing culture of thrift to blizzard" talk to investors).

      Try to understand the difference. These are two very different kinds of freedoms.

    283. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Er... the interoperability clause is part of copyright law, so no, it wouldn't be illegal at that point.

      But is it legal obviously enough that a court case is dismissed right away? Because otherwise it becomes a matter of who runs out of money first, making it de facto illegal, at least for Joe Average.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    284. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If Blizzard actually cared about duping and hacking in Diablo II, they should have policed their own servers and banned accounts and CD keys of the cheaters. As it was, they did basically nothing and once the cheaters learned there was no punishment for cheating (except maybe losing your duped items) you ended up with mass cheating the plagued battle.net.

    285. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rage has lots of huge textures, and installed at about 25 gigs.

      So yes.

    286. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      It's ironic because you rant against DRM and then say "Hey, go use this DRM service that requires online activations and has full control over your ability to install the games you own!". Steam is far worse than a simple disc check. A disc check merely meant having to put in the key from the manual / case and have the disc in the drive - you could install the game 5 billion times and never had to worry about activation servers being turned off or the company going out of business. With Steam, you rely on them to even be able to install your game (let alone activate it) and if they ever go bust or decide certain older games aren't selling and they want to use the server resourced for other things *poof* your games that you paid for are GONE without you being paid a single cent for the destruction of your property.

      I'll never use Steam because it's DRM. I have no problem with digital only distribution and I buy a metric ton of games from GOG.com - even ones I'll probably never finish because I want to support them for being the one company who gets it and treats their gaming customers with respect. I can make as many backups as I want of my GOG.com games so that if they ever go bust, I'll still have my games because there's no activation required.

      Can YOU say the same about D3? or Origin? or any other system currently employed on AAA gaming?

      I research every game before I buy it - if it has DRM, I don't buy it. It doesn't matter if it's a game I waited 12 years for (like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2) and I've been a loyal fan of the franchise / company for two decades, if they put DRM on it to punish me for buying their game, then they don't get my money. It's THAT simple. I have zero tolerance for DRM and I will not reward any company that uses it. It doesn't matter if cracks are available, you're still paying them and saying "Good job on using DRM - keep adding more DRM to your games!"

      I don't know how old you are, but sadly, people like you are killing my favorite hobby for the last 20-something years. Other than GOG.com, in the near future I probably won't be able to buy any games without DRM, which means I simply won't buy anything that's not on GOG.com.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    287. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      For stuff that's reallt important to me, I'm happy to pay more to get somehting that I can pass on to my children. Games simply aren't that important, nor IMO should they be.

      You're not paying MORE for a game without DRM. It's about not throwing your money away on something that will be useless in a couple of years.

      When you buy it, there's a risk it will be lost. When you buy a game online, there's a risk the hosting company will shut down. Which risk is worse?

      Seeing how no one will live long enough for a CD to die without someone intentionally destroying it and yet in the last few years we've seen games become non-functional due to asshole companies turning off servers, we already know the answer to that question. If you're responsible, your game on CD will outlive you. If you buy a DRM'd game, it very likely won't exist in a decade.

      I'm still astounded that so many /.er see DRM for games as some sort of moral wrong. A practical consideration when buying a game? Sure. But morally? The game's creators have rights too.

      They have the right to sell a game. That's it. They do NOT have the right to violate the Doctrine of First Sale and tell you that you cannot resell your game. They do NOT have the right to punish paying customers by installing malware on their systems. They have openly stated multiple times that DRM has NOTHING to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing reselling games and forcing users to buy the next game in the series because they deactivate the older games.

      Would you be OK with any other company telling you that they have control over how / when / if you can use your property and having the ability to destroy your property at will? I highly doubt it, so why put up with that garbage from a game company?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    288. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO - only textures and video sequences are shipped!
      no quest info, no item info, no mobinfo, no nothing but graphics!

    289. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's about not throwing your money away

      Respectfully, did the GP pay you for advice on how to spend his/her money? If not, then, again, respectfully, that's none of your business

      There are people in this world who spend money on smokes, booze, drugs, sex, and all sorts of things that others might think are a total waste (and harms their body). There are hobbies out there which overall costs more than playing video games. Only the buyer gets to decide if they're throwing money away or not.

      If you're responsible, your game on CD will outlive you. If you buy a DRM'd game, it very likely won't exist in a decade.

      Doesn't make it a waste. Again, the buyer (GP) thinks it was worth it.

      They have the right to sell a game. That's it. They do NOT have the right to violate the Doctrine of First Sale and tell you that you cannot resell your game.

      No, they have more rights than that. Namely, they have the right to code their game however they want. That means they might code it to require a connection to their server, or whatever DRM scheme they have.

      Think of it this way: walkie-talkies (radio receivers) vs phones.

      Before, game companies code their game to function like walkie talkies: they can work without a carrier (connecting to server, DRM, etc)

      Nowadays, game companies code their game to function like a phone: needs a carrier or it won't work very well

      It's completely within the game companies rights to either make/sell phones, or make/sell walkie talkies. The fact they're selling "phones" with themselves as the only carrier doesn't violate the First Sales, because hey - your First Sale is only just the "phone". Carrier not included*

      Even more physical example: "batteries not included". Hey, the toy/gadget/whatever won't work without them, but all the First Sales does not include the batteries. Maybe a company is like Sony, and designed their toy to use proprietary batteries (it's Sony's right to design their toys in whatever way they want), so if Sony stops making them, you're SOL. Still not a violation of First Sales

      You might think people would be stupid to go along, but as sale in the beginning: you don't decide for them what they think is worth their money

      Oh don't get me wrong, it's a dick move, but your rights aren't being violated. That's what GP's getting at: you might not like it, but it's not a violation of your rights, people are over exaggerating

      Would you be OK with any other company

      Well as I said with phone companies, people are OK with it more often than you think.

    290. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      Having played D3 a bit, I sort of see why they did it. I don't think it's actually about piracy- hell, they literally gave this game away to folks who have a year long subscription to WoW- it's because they want everything server side just like in WoW, which has given them tons of money. Now, with WoW, you'll grant that the game isn't even played locally, so calling it a copy protection scheme isn't fair. With D3, it sort of is- but I see why. All my RealID friends are around to chat with, no matter what game they are in, cheeves come rolling in, and the game feels like an MMO even though properly it really isn't.

      I'm not really defending Blizzard on this, and I think that this decision was directly responsible for all the negative feelings on launch. Just that they honestly want the ONLY game experience to be the one that they think is "best", and that this is the online version. I don't agree with that overly-controlling idea by any means, but I'll grant that it probably isn't motivated by piracy concerns. It *might* be motivated by real money auction house- if you get some amazing weapon to drop, you might sell that on the RMAH, and that would generate income for Blizzard. But overall, I think they have "artistic" motivations for such an onerous level of control.

    291. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All Diablo games had DRM. The first two required the CD in the drive, and require it to this very day. If that didn't spoil your enjoyment, then why does this?

    292. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no single player.

      You can join a multiplayer game and be alone.
      And your friends can quick-join this game (by default).

    293. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      That's why my wife and I, after playing TONS of Diablo II decided to take a pass on III. We don't care about online play with strangers, and we sure as hell don't want to be REQUIRED to be online to play...

    294. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Blizzard put out a D2 patch themselves that removed the CD-required-in-drive issue...

    295. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      FUD, total and complete FUD. You are making up scenarios that have NEVER happened to justify your position and that is classical FUD. if you can't justify your position with current data then i'm sorry but you are just piling on the FUD. Steam has been around for a decade now and not a single thing you describe has happened, not one. Your rant reminds me of the anti-BSD GPLers who come up with ever worse "doom scenarios" because nothing they have been saying has held true.

      Can I back up my Steam games? Yes I can. Can i install them on any system i own? yes I can, I just can't play them on multiple systems at the same time, well guess what? A normal human can't play multiple systems at the same time! Can I crack Steam just as easily as ANY OTHER RETAIL SYSTEM OR DISC? Yes I can, infact its easier to crack a Steam game than some of the later Starforce and SecuROM systems on later games which will stick kernel hooks all over the place.

      So I'm sorry but if the ONLY arguments you can come up with involve doom scenarios than you are no different than all the others spreading FUD and shilling for their causes. Either back up your statements with actual current facts or quit wasting our time with FUD.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    296. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      As stated by the GP, the pirate always wins.
      If I do what you suggest, I win, but only after I become the pirate.

    297. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      "Respectfully", it was a discussion about the evils of DRM. I pointed out that buying a game with DRM is wasting your money because they WILL turn off that server and destroy your copy of the game - and you have no idea when that will be. It could be the day after you buy the game or one to two years later. It's not about choice of product, it's about buying a product that is supposed to have an eternal shelf life but the company built in a self destruct button just to force you to upgrade. Would you be saying the same stuff if we were talking about Ford putting a self destruct "feature" in their new cars that allows them to destroy your car and force you to buy a new one? I highly doubt it.

      They do not have the right to code a self destruct feature into a product. Even the government has discussed banning DRM because it exists purely to harm consumers. The companies themselves have openly admitted that this is NOT about piracy or any other red herring, it's about trying to force people to buy more copies of a game so that they make higher profits.

      Your analogy is horribly flawed. Phones need a network because it needs a way to route calls to each person (just like you need a server for online games - you need to route each persons data appropriately). There is no need whatsoever for connecting to a server for a SINGLE PLAYER game because there is no information to be routed.

      Phone companies don't violate the First Sale doctrine because you can resell your goddamn phone. You cannot resell a game with DRM.

      Again, your battery example doesn't make sense because Sony doesn't get to flip a switch and force your batteries to die. There's also a HUGE difference between "a physical product is no longer made" and a company intentionally destroying your existing property to force you to upgrade. Why is this too complicated for you to understand?

      Yes, it IS a violation of your rights if they destroy your property that you paid for! If anyone else destroyed it, it would be arson. Yet people like you insist that it's OK for software companies to pull this shit.

      Well as I said with phone companies, people are OK with it more often than you think.

      No, you didn't. You rambled about something completely different that doesn't involve destroying someone's property and then claimed that they were the same.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    298. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      All my RealID friends are around to chat with, no matter what game they are in

      If you wanna chat, go on Facebook, not a single player game.

      Just that they honestly want the ONLY game experience to be the one that they think is "best", and that this is the online version.

      I don't buy that for a second. This is a continuation of the (not quite as bad) always online DRM from Starcraft 2. Ever since the Activision merger Blizzard has gone downhill - fast. I used to buy every game they made for 18 years until they started spitting in their customers faces with with this DRM crap. The company I once held up as the having the best customer service in the industry has now lost my business forever and I will continue to recommend to others that they don't buy from Blizzard.

      but I'll grant that it probably isn't motivated by piracy concerns.

      Game companies have openly admitted in interviews that DRM is about killing the used game market and destroying your ability to resell your game, not about piracy.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    299. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Just because they haven't done it in a decade doesn't mean that they CAN'T or WON'T at some point. They openly say in the ToS that they're not required to refund you or provide you with an offline copy if they ditch a game or end up shutting down.

      Can I back up my Steam games? Yes I can. Can i install them on any system i own? yes I can

      As long as they continue to let you - they can revoke that privilege at any time. Also, all the backups in the world mean nothing if they turn off the activation server. Do you really think that in another 10 years they'll still have the same games that they had when they launched? No - the kids with no attention span who only care about explosions won't buy them and they'll clear them out to make room for newer things.

      A normal human can't play multiple systems at the same time!

      Well guess what? A normal human CAN legally own more than one computer and CAN have a friend over or, god forbid, a girlfriend who wants to play the game with them. Legally, that does NOT require a new copy because they are both YOUR computers.

      So I'm sorry but if the ONLY arguments you can come up with involve doom scenarios than you are no different than all the others spreading FUD and shilling for their causes. Either back up your statements with actual current facts or quit wasting our time with FUD.

      They HAVE happened. Not with Steam, but with other games using DRM - like Madden *insert year here* where less than a year after it came out they killed the server for it to force people to upgrade. Steam will do it too eventually. The fact that you have the DRM industries cock shoved so far down your throat doesn't change that they can and will do it. But hey, why look at all the people who've been harmed by DRM when you can promote destroying an entire industry and hobby?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    300. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends what you define as DRM. I always thought "DRM" strictly referred to the locking of actual data (i.e. music, movies, software) to a particular user in order to prevent copying/sharing of that data. "Always online" requirements, while just as annoying, I didn't put under that umbrella. But that may simply be my incorrect understanding of the term. I'm not disagreeing that it sucks, but merely saying that I didn't really think of it as "DRM". You don't have to tell me about the pitfalls of 'always online' ... I'm Australian so one unavoidable impact of this for me is having 300-400 ms of latency playing a 'single player' game (wish Blizz would get around to installing some local servers one of these years ... the AU/NZ market has got to be big enough to justify at least ONE server).

      Separating the single player game from the (potentially) multiplayer game is a good idea ... I never thought about that but now that you mention it, it'd be a simple way of doing it. When creating a character you could be given the choice of creating a "local only" character, or an "online" character (only the online character could participate in multiplayer games and the auction house, but could still be played 'single player, but online' if you wanted.

      Mind you, it'd suck if you created a "local only" character and got an awesome drop that you could have sold for $100s on the AH. I strongly suspect that Blizzard didn't go down this route not for nefarious "stop the pirates/hackers" reasons, but more because by forcing everyone to play online, there'd be a much wider range of equipment being dropped that could potentially be put on the RMAH. Since Blizz gets a cut of every transaction this is obviously in their interest.

    301. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard will never go belly up. With over ten million subscriptions to WoW (sorry SWToR fanboys, but you aren't playing a WoW killer, and neither was Warhammer, AoC, Rift or countless other MMOs that have come out over the years) Blizz is laughing it's way to the bank every quarter. And with a Chinese mythos based expansion where you get to play anthropomorphic Pandas, expect to see their player base doubled choc full of Asian schoolgirls. And if that's not enough, Bliz has a new MMO coming out in five years (or so.... they tend to run late).

      Unless Activision is run by monkeys in rubber pants, I expect you'll be able to play Diablo III well after the world ends this year.

    302. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing that it sucks

      I see. My mistake.

      Mind you, it'd suck if you created a "local only" character and got an awesome drop that you could have sold for $100s on the AH.

      It would, but that's the player's own decision in the end.

      I strongly suspect that Blizzard didn't go down this route not for nefarious "stop the pirates/hackers" reasons

      I believe that it was at least part of the reason.

      Since Blizz gets a cut of every transaction this is obviously in their interest.

      It doesn't at all surprise me that they'd do it for this reason.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    303. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Groghunter · · Score: 1

      actually, EA killed the last Madden's servers before the new version was even out.

    304. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by plasm4 · · Score: 1

      It's not really like DRM though. It's an online service that you pay once for. You wouldn't say Google has put DRM on gmail would you? Now the purpose and effect may be the same as a Digital Rights Management system, but technically it is quite different.

    305. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      It's an online service that you pay once for.

      With a single player mode. And it's a game. And previous Diablo games had single player modes that let you play offline.

      I'm not seeing the similarity, there. No matter what you call it, I'll call it "idiotic."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    306. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now maybe they'll release a patch some day that will override this, or maybe they won't. But you can bet that the one group that will *definitely* have a patch are the pirates."

      Blizz released no-cd patches for d2 and war3 long after they matured, why? the game was pirate-able anyway obviously,
      and there was very little interest by the public for new sales, so they rewarded current and future fans with some small
      convenience basically at the end of the games life (which my god was VERY long in both cases)

      I expect in many years, maybe even more than 5, blizz will substantially reduce the inconvenience of loading and using d3 / sc2
      I respect the agressive DRM, because they offer us SUBSTANTIAL long term value.

      D3 looks unfinished. there is no PVP so I will wait till expansion and get the combo deal.

    307. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      If you think about the size of the game world, comparing D3 to WoW (for example), even with random generation of some terrains, D3 is probably smaller than a single continent in WoW with less mob types. It operates in isometric view. WoW currently clocks in around 25Gb I think for the Beta folder (there was a 17Gb download on top of my previous 17Gb directory, but it overwrote a heap of stuff - say a max of 34Gb if it was all new content).

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    308. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I know it uses the same launcher and agent platform as the WoW:MoP beta based on blue posts in the tech forums.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    309. Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately game companies now see the USA as a masochistic market willing to give up everything for the shiny. See the whole "TSA fucks about everything and doesn't really do anything at all" state and how nobody in the USA is standing up to fight it. Now a whole country is predisposed to be fucked and be thankful for it! It's just that the mentality is extending to other areas in life...

  2. Like bnetd, it'll be demonized by sethstorm · · Score: 0

    Now maybe they'll release a patch some day that will override this, or maybe they won't. But you can bet that the one group that will *definitely* have a patch are the pirates.

    However, anyone that advocates for such patch will be demonized, the project sued into oblivion, and Blizzard steals any domain names associated with the project.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:Like bnetd, it'll be demonized by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      I believe he is referring to bnetd. I can see how a younger person might not have known about that.

    2. Re:Like bnetd, it'll be demonized by Auroch · · Score: 0

      I believe he is referring to bnetd. I can see how a younger person might not have known about that.

      And here I was, thinking that young people actually DO know everything (through their wikipedia accessible exo-brain phones). Turns out that no, you teenagers are just as dumb as I think you are - just better equipped at finding data, not actually using it.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    3. Re:Like bnetd, it'll be demonized by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      1. I am not a teenager, nor dumb.
      2. that giant whooshing sound you heard was the joke going over your head.

    4. Re:Like bnetd, it'll be demonized by Auroch · · Score: 1

      1. I am not a teenager, nor dumb. 2. that giant whooshing sound you heard was the joke going over your head.

      OMG, Did you hear that? It went over your head too! (Did you not realize I was actually commenting in support of your "joke"?). Let's face it, if people don't recognize your comment as funny, then it's probably not the public that is missing the joke.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
  3. NewFail by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    NewEgg has failed me for the first time in a decade. I pre-ordered a copy ($10 off) but they didn't bother shipping it until today (UPS 3 day). Considering D3 has an interesting DRM that allows you to install it before the launch date and just prevents you from playing it until then, it would have made more sense to me if NewEgg shipped them late last week so they would arrive today or yesterday. One egg off for poor planning.

    1. Re:NewFail by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I take that back. I have friends who got it today and they can't even join a game the servers are so overloaded. Looks like I'm missing nothing by waiting another day or two.

    2. Re:NewFail by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

      I've got it today and I've played it for a while. It seems the servers are in maintenance now.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    3. Re:NewFail by chill · · Score: 1

      Look on the bright side. All that extra bandwidth available to surf porn while you wait!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:NewFail by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      I play Diablo. I already have *all* of the porn on my hard drive.

    5. Re:NewFail by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they are taking some hardware from WoW.

      </bitter>

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:NewFail by GoNINzo · · Score: 1

      I also am a little disappointed in this. They ended up shipping mine yesterday evening, so I'm slated for end of day tomorrow. Which is kind of a pain since I have tomorrow scheduled off. (Yes, I took a comp day to play Diablo 3 since I worked Saturday, what of it!)

      --
      Gonzo Granzeau
      "Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
    7. Re:NewFail by Krokus · · Score: 1

      I started attempting to log in at about 12:04am. It only took me a few tries to get past the authentication server into the character creation screen. But the creation of my character consistently and repeatedly timed out. Eventually, it seemed to get stuck so I started over at the log-in screen. By this time, most of the people who had gone out to the stores and bought a physical copy had clearly arrived home and installed it, since it took me almost an hour of repeated attempts to get past the log-in screen the second time.

      When I did get through, I saw that my character was indeed created. I clicked the Start Game button, went into the game and never had a single problem with it for the next three hours.

    8. Re:NewFail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You're going to take an egg from a product because a reseller horked up the shipping? You, sir, are part of the problem when it comes to online product ratings.

    9. Re:NewFail by Nyder · · Score: 1

      NewEgg has failed me for the first time in a decade. I pre-ordered a copy ($10 off) but they didn't bother shipping it until today (UPS 3 day). Considering D3 has an interesting DRM that allows you to install it before the launch date and just prevents you from playing it until then, it would have made more sense to me if NewEgg shipped them late last week so they would arrive today or yesterday. One egg off for poor planning.

      The game wasn't released until today, Newegg can NOT ship it before the release date.

      Same as you can NOT go to Best Buy or Gamestop and buy the game any day before today.

      Always has been this way.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:NewFail by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which is nonsense, since some people have had the game on their HD for a while now. It just needed servers to start.
      IN fact, the seems to be a great upside to this DRM for the consumer. You can be distributing the game before it can start.
      Which would have the benefit of an accurate account of your server load.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:NewFail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IN fact, the seems to be a great upside to this DRM for the consumer. You can be distributing the game before it can start.

      Even bigger upside of this for the consumer is that it can barely start at release date, freeing you for your significant others, books and Great Outside! Old single player games without always-online requirement didn't have such a benefit.

    12. Re:NewFail by praxis · · Score: 1

      Next time take a day off once you have the game, it's installed, and the servers are not on their knees. It might be a few days later but you'll get your day's worth.

    13. Re:NewFail by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      One of Blizzard's big selling points is you could install it and troubleshoot any issues ahead of time... which is why some people have had it installed for several days already so they could log on right at T minus zero

    14. Re:NewFail by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Not true - they can ship before the release date as long as it doesn't ARRIVE before the release date. Amazon does this all the time with pre-orders - they send them 2 Day shipping so that they arrive on the release date.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  4. Surprise by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    I can't believe it took over 14 (or 13,12,11 depending on time zone) hours from the launch of Diablo III for an article to get on /. I guess all the gamers were busy trying to log in?

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  5. Don't care by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Informative

    Requires an internet connection even for single player.

    Not paying for that. I'll go find some indie developer to give my money to instead.

    1. Re:Don't care by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Same here, I'm boycotting it along side ME3.

      Indie games are in no short supply right now.

    2. Re:Don't care by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      I very well remember the single-player come online thing that was open battlenet in D2. It was infested with blatant cheats. Not the relatively uncommon dupes of D3 closed battlenet but really blatant edited items. Like the ever popular giant charm +7 skill to everything. Your D3 singleplayer games are closed bnet games with only you in it. As such, D3 doesn't really have a proper singleplayer mode. All games are hosted. Single or not. A singleplayer mode would have been nice, just don't let them take their characters online. Open bnet was ugly.
      What really disturbs me is how shallow the skill system is in D3. While in D2 only cookie cutter builds were really viable it also allowed for really quirky and extreme and very gear dependent insane builds that were nearly competetive.
      I'll play D3 until the cows(there are no cows) come home hoping that some of the depth will be there. Also what made D2 really interesting in a pathetic OCD kind of way was you couldn't respec. I used to plan for days how to spec and stat my new twinks assuming the availability of semi-affordable stuff and trading my things in trading forums so I could get what I needed. Interestingly I still think the best runeword was HelLumFal.
      Yes, I'm a D2 nerd.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    3. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are correct in that D3 is not a singleplayer game.

      However, you could respec in D2, since patch 1.13:

      • - Completing the first quest of Act 1 ("Den of Evil") grants you 1 respec (talk to Akara). Do that in each difficulty mode, and that's 3 respec per character.
      • - You can use the Horadric Cube to craft a "Token of Absolution". Right-click on it, and voila, stats/skill reset. You can craft it as many times as you want. To create it, you need special items dropped by bosses in hell mode (maybe 10% of the time) :
        • + 1 Twisted Essence of Suffering (dropped by Andariel and Duriel)
        • + 1 Charged Essence of Hatred (dropped by Mephisto)
        • + 1 Burning Essence of Terror (dropped by Diablo)
        • + 1 Festering Essence of Destruction (dropped by Baal)
    4. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's to say hipster indie developer wont require an internet connection as well. this is a made up analogy and no +5 sir.

    5. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no single player.

      There is only an online mode (in which you can play solo, if you want)

    6. Re:Don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the main reason I keep my Xbox 360 - I can buy games for it that are guaranteed to work without connecting it to the internet.

      Condemned, L.A. Noire, Dead Island, etc.

      I don't buy many games, but when I do I buy single player.

  6. DRM-free Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be 1st in line for that one baby!!

    1. Re:DRM-free Torrent? by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

      After being burned by the always-on requirement of Starcraft 2, I'll be 2nd in that line.

    2. Re:DRM-free Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Starcraft 2 has an offline single player mode!

    3. Re:DRM-free Torrent? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The always on requirement in D3 is achieved by running the entire game world on the Battle.Net servers, so no dice.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    4. Re:DRM-free Torrent? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you would play it, though. Much of game is actually implemented in the server and not the client. You might be able to look at the art, but it's the server that sets the maps, orders the AI of the monsters, and many other basic things.

  7. Polish Mode by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Diablo III had been in the works for quite some time — another example of Blizzard's notoriously long development cycle — and game director Jay Wilson said it was in "polish mode" for the past two years."

    No fair that Poland got it two years early >_>

    1. Re:Polish Mode by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, don't blame Blizzard for putting in the hard work. It takes time and effort to reverse polish notation.

    2. Re:Polish Mode by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Ju vant us too inwade zem, Herr Hillman? ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Polish Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best joke of the day!

      Thanks! That made my day!

    4. Re:Polish Mode by kfsone · · Score: 1

      They've been doing that ever since 1937...

      --
      -- A change is as good as a reboot.
    5. Re:Polish Mode by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      StarCraft 2 and now Diablo 3 I am reliving my high school years.

    6. Re:Polish Mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't want to forget Poland. I for one am glad they took the time to shock and awe the rest of us with such an uneventful release. Mission accomplished.

  8. Release Failure by don+depresor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So they told us that having to connect to their servers to play in single player mode wouldn't be a problem, that we should trust them.

    And now the EU login server is melting under the pounding of thousands of angry players trying to play solo.

    And to add insult to injury they didn't even have the nice idea of implementing queues like most similar systems do..

    1. Re:Release Failure by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And to add insult to injury they didn't even have the nice idea of implementing queues like most similar systems do..

      Why should anyone ever have to queue to play a single player game?

    2. Re:Release Failure by don+depresor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because right now you have to login to their servers to play single player, and since the autentication servers are overloaded they just reject most of the connections, so you have to try a hundred times to get logged in. A queue would somewhat aleviate that problem.

      Seriously, that stupid online single player idea is a damn fuckup...

    3. Re:Release Failure by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Last night at around 5am EST, I was finally able to log in. Which is okay, because I wasn't doing anything anyway. I tried about 5mins ago and was able to log in without a problem. You'd think they'd have figured out what to do with all their practice with WoW/expansions and SC2. But maybe they just didn't expect it.

      It's possible, then again they are offering a replacement copy to anyone who bought from GAME Australia who has a copy of their original receipt. I'd link to the source, but I hate kotaku, and like Stephen much better, and he could use the ad traffic.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Release Failure by Ardaen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, a queue is a fix for a manufactured problem.

      Similar problem solving:
      Because your friend keeps stabbing you in the leg with a sharp knife, we've hired a paramedic to follow you around.

      Proper solution:
      Because your friend keeps stabbing you, we arrested him. As a result you will not get stabbed by him again.

    5. Re:Release Failure by don+depresor · · Score: 1

      Tell Blizzard to allow people to play offline, and if they change their mind, i'll name my firstborn after you ;) (and second and third if you want)

    6. Re:Release Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who rejects always-online DRM, I find this hilariously entertaining. Thank you Blizzard for proving me right and all those fanboys wrong. The tears of simple-minded idiots are sweet as honey.

    7. Re:Release Failure by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      Queuing for single player would be bad. But right now, Diablo 3 is in the extremely embarrassing position of not even letting you play single player AT ALL.

      Seriously, this has got to be one of the worst game launches of all time. #error37 is trending like CRAAAZY on twitter.

      First the game wasn't actually out at midnight, even though there were midnight releases. Its out at midnight PDT, which is 4 am on the east coast. Yay!
      Second, you get online, and the servers were so hit at midnight PDT that you couldn't get in. Great.
      Then this morning, servers went down.

      They said after an hour of maintenance, we could play. For early morning, this is fine.
      An hour later, still can't play.

      Now they say that by 1:30 PDT (which is 3:30 to 5:30 throughout the US) the game would finally be playable. Ugggggh.

      It is still unplayable. Servers are STILL down. NOW they've updated and said 3:30 PDT.

      This is a joke. I cannot believe a company as big as Blizzard is having this much trouble. These guys RUN World of warcraft. Doesn't it have like 10 million subscribers? HOW DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND SERVER LOAD YET?

      What the hell was the point of the open beta, blizzard?!??!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    8. Re:Release Failure by Vairon · · Score: 1

      Because your single player character and its items can be used in online multiplayer play. The randomly generated maps, AI and item drops are server-side in order to prevent hackers from cheating. In Diablo 2 this was big problem. In addition now that there's an online auction that allows people to auction in game items for both game gold or US dollars and other currencies. It's imperative that people not be allowed to duplicate items or otherwise cheat.

    9. Re:Release Failure by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The randomly generated maps, AI and item drops are server-side in order to prevent hackers from cheating.

      So once again, they're punishing everyone for the actions of others...

      Just separate single player and online accounts, or give people the option to do so (if you don't store your character online, you can't use it online). Instead, they force these "features" on everyone.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:Release Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you bothered to read you would realize that while vast amounts of data (sound, pics, etc) are stored client side, the Diablo world maps are rendered server side so its not a simple auth server (does password sent = password stored) issue. If I couldn't login into my laptop locally because a server (DC) was down, yeah that would be a cluster F, but not even Windows fails in that regard. But once you login, if your documents are on file server that down, sorry.

    11. Re:Release Failure by CobaltBlueDW · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone get lag in a single player game?

      The obvious reason is because DRM is cool! duh!

    12. Re:Release Failure by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Queuing for single player would be bad. But right now, Diablo 3 is in the extremely embarrassing position of not even letting you play single player AT ALL.

      Good. They deserve the bad press, game returns, lost sales, and hopefully class action lawsuit for being scum enough to use always on DRM (or any DRM).

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    13. Re:Release Failure by raynet · · Score: 1

      Well, gosh, perhaps they should have prevented you from using the single player characters in the multiplayer play...

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    14. Re:Release Failure by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying we should arrest Blizzard for not providing sufficient login servers to handle the load?

      Worst. Analogy. Ever. At least make the token effort of having the solution applicable to the problem you're attempting to explain.

      A better analogy would be (especially considering the audience): "Everyone wants to drive from Birmingham to London, but the on-ramp at Birmingham is only one lane while the off-ramp at London is 3. So, we're going to put traffic lights at the on-ramp to alleviate congestion on the motorway." This works because the motorway isn't congested, only the on-ramp, and the solution simply organises the congestion instead of resolving it.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:Release Failure by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is proving to be the perfect PR nightmare that we need to wake the population up to just how unacceptable DRM really is. Its completely assbackwards, punishing your loyal fans to somehow "get back" at pirates, who are completely unaffected. Its the height of arrogance and stupidity.

      Companies are not about justice, companies are not about fair or punishing the wicked. Companies are about serving a market demand. You serve your customers, and you don't bother thinking about non-customers, except to wonder how you might turn them into paying customers. (note: DRM does not make pirates become customers. It makes customers become pirates).

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    16. Re:Release Failure by chonglibloodsport · · Score: 1

      Just separate single player and online accounts, or give people the option to do so

      That would reduce the potential market for their real money auction house. The whole point of this charade is to get as many cattle as possible into the fields, "farming" items for Blizzard to profit from.

  9. Not quite ready yet by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Add this to the borked-beta weekend and I think they have more polishing to do.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Not quite ready yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mysle, ze gra jest w porzadku. Musisz byc gra na wersje angielska.

    2. Re:Not quite ready yet by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      There are errors all over the place, I've been stuck on "Retrieving Hero List" for more than an hour now ...

    3. Re:Not quite ready yet by chispito · · Score: 1

      Well, historically the only thing that breaks a Blizzard game harder than the bugs is their intentional balancing from patch to patch.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  10. Torchlight, better game less money. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out torchlight 2, It looks really good and will allow multi-player without all the hassle.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Torchlight, better game less money. by Simploid · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that Torchlight 2 comes up a lot but nobody mentions Grim Dawn (www.grimdawn.com ) which seems very promising indeed and just recently was on kickstarter.

    2. Re:Torchlight, better game less money. by Ezel · · Score: 1

      It's still on kickstarter. 31 hours to go at the moment I'm posting this.

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crateentertainment/grim-dawn

      --
      Prosp long and liver.
  11. Whats the fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Excuse me for asking without more politeness, but i wonder what the fun in this game is.
    I never gamed much, although i have enjoyed flying Battlefield2 helicopters, enjoyed C&C:Red Alert 1 strategy, and did some discover/viving in minecraft.

    Isn't it just a lot of clicking while walking, attributing but nothing more but a score?

    Or is there humor or honor/pride in the process?
    Is there puzzles (i don't count "do ten times that" or "walk to southpole and be rerouted" as puzzles) or does another form of honor/pride come at play?

    1. Re:Whats the fun? by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Diablo II had an interesting storyline, although the expansion was more of the last chapter of a book rather than an extension to the story. After you know the story, it's still fun to play as different characters and enjoy the challenge. Can you make a Barbarian that only throws? What about a melee Sorceress? It's not for everyone, but if you can master a unique style rather than grinding out the same old "winning" combinations as anyone else, it's quite fun.

    2. Re:Whats the fun? by Andr+T. · · Score: 1

      I think this pretty much sums it up for Diablo and Wow: http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2011/04/the-psychology-of-loot/

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    3. Re:Whats the fun? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The fun of the action-RPG genre comes from a number of sources. First is crafting a character through a selection of choices. This is analogous to having a backpack that can only hold so many items and a large selection of tools to bring along. In a backpacking situation this would be something like: Perhaps you want a very sturdy shovel so that you can dig a very good fire pit and latrine, but then you don't have room for a comfortable chair.

      The trade-offs involved make it entertaining to find a character loadout that fits your play style and preferences while also being "viable".

      Beyond character selection there is skill in the "clicking and walking" where you're trying to keep track of what spells and abilities are activated at any given time and in what manner you approach enemies to ensure you efficiently dispatch them. Or, if you prefer, just running into combat and wading through it all with reckless abandon.

      Thirdly, there's usually an aspect of item collection where you find new items that have different abilities attached and you try to find the synergy between different items and your character's strengths and weaknesses.

      Finally there is usually a story associated with the game and, in the really good games, your actions modify the story and show some effect upon the game world.

      Personally, I'm much more a fan of character creation and item discovery than the actual hack-and-slash or story parts, but it's all pretty fun for me.

    4. Re:Whats the fun? by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I'm much more a fan of character creation and item discovery than the actual hack-and-slash or story parts, but it's all pretty fun for me.

      Then I've got a game for you, and it's 100% less expensive than Diablo III.

      Behold: http://www.nethack.org/

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re:Whats the fun? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Curiously, I've never played NetHack despite having heard of it. DF just released another version though, so I'll probably go back to some dwarfly horror, but when I'm bored of dwarves I'll give NetHack a toss.

    6. Re:Whats the fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should definitely try Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, it's miles better than NetHack which is no longer developed and basically broken.... DCSS is being actively developed and one of the goeals is to aviod NetHack's tediousness and grinding.

      http://crawl.develz.org/wordpress/

      Also, Brogue is an amazing game from the roguelike genre, simple and pure:

      http://sites.google.com/site/broguegame/

    7. Re:Whats the fun? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      If it has to be explained to you then it's not going to be fun for you.

      People enjoy different things. Don't worry about it and move on.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Whats the fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pff.

      Anyone who has been playing games for a while knows not to buy the damn thing when it first comes out. You're really just Beta Test Part X. IF you're going to do it at all, wait a month or two to get the big bug fix patches out of the way first.

      As for the always on connection ( even for single player ) part of me wonders if it's truly designed for anti-hacking and
      duping issues, or if it's really to make sure you have the option to use the new Auction House for real $$$$ Blizzard
      has set up with this release.

      After all, if you're not connected to the servers, Blizz can't possibly tempt you with that Spatula of Cat Flipping +5 for
      X Blizzard Bucks . . . . . :|

    9. Re:Whats the fun? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Isn't it just a lot of clicking while walking, attributing but nothing more but a score?"
      yep; which is fine. All pinball games where about was nothing more then the score. Same with Pac-Man, or most games.

      Oh, it's also about the auction house.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Whats the fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Crawl! https://tiles.crawl.develz.org/

    11. Re:Whats the fun? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      To quote Angry Joe in his review of Sacred II its all about the loot. The fun thing about hack and slash is being a total loot whore and trying to find the best loot. Since drops are random for the most part in most games it can take some work to get the loot but once you have some killer loot it can kick some ass.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Whats the fun? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Ehhhhh, Nethack, while a fantastic experience in it's own right, has 1 or 2 standard builds in the endgame. There are a lot of paths to get there. But once you get your ascension kit together, you're pretty golden.

      There is a shmorgas board of rougelikes out there, but if you're all about crafting a finely honed killing machine, might I suggest Dungeon Crawl. It's got diversity.

  12. Let me have my many offline alts! by LambdaWolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    The real evil here, where players will suffer even if they don't mind jumping through the hoops, is the limit of 10 characters per game copy, even if they are only used for single player. That pisses me off. I've been told you don't "need" more than that many, because there are only five classes times two sexes, and apparently no exclusive character choices such that you would need alts for game-mechanics reasons. But you're SOL if you want to enjoy the game experience from level 1 forward and don't want to delete any of your old characters.

    But... I went and picked up my collector's edition this morning anyway. I already play all-online games such as World of Warcraft with similar limitations. I can reluctantly live with with paying for Diablo III as long as I think of it that way: as a limited Internet service and not a game you can really, you know, have. It would be a better product if it were the latter, but oh well. Hopefully it will at least be fun.

    --
    "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    1. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, do you really think after going through the "experience" 10 times, on three separate difficulty settings you'll somehow feel as if you "missed" something and want to play through this an 11th time on a duplicate character... and even if you did, why not delete your old one? you clearly don't mind leveling it all the way back up. Having two characters of the same sex and class is pointless and by the time you even level all 10 of these characters they will probably have added more slots anyway.

    2. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Krokus · · Score: 1

      But, how many countless games in the past, particularly cartridge games, had only three or five "save slots"? I don't see the difference other than available storage, cartridges being light on that sort of thing. It seems reasonable to me for Blizzard to not want millions of people to fill up their server-side storage with eleventy-million characters, most of which will rarely, if ever get played.

      Diablo II would exterminate your battle.net character if you didn't play it for a period of time (three months, I think?) Frankly, I'd rather have limited reliable storage than risk my characters' perma-death due to inactivity.

    3. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But, how many countless games in the past

      Presumably there was an actual reason for this. This restriction is simply needless (as is the DRM). And keep in mind, this apparently even applies to single-player.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonable to me for Blizzard to not want millions of people to fill up their server-side storage with eleventy-million characters, most of which will rarely, if ever get played.

      I agree; maybe I was unclear. What I want is the ability to play an unlimited number of single-player-only characters and store the save data on my own, local machine.

      There's no reason for Blizzard not to provide this option, except as DRM and maybe to encourage real-money exchanges. The only official explanation I've seen is some limp-wristed story about how they don't want players to spend a lot of time building up a locally-stored character, then decide they want to use it to Battle.net, and get upset when they find out they can't. Just sounds like an excuse though.

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    5. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I'd guess the real reason- they don't want you to share your copy with your friends.

      I have dozens of games- and I have only one copy of each, with only very few exceptions. I can play these, my fiance can play these, my sister played these back when we lived together, my kids will be able to play these. There is usually absolutely no limit to how many concurrent save-games can be held at any one time, so any number of us can share the same game install.

      10 characters seems to be the smallest number they could limit it too while still having some arithmetic to back up their reasoning (5 class times 2 genders). But it's enough that a hardcore player would be inconvenienced sharing with a friend, and even casual players would get irritated sharing with two others, with 3.3 character slots to use...

    6. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, just copy one of your character's save game files to somewhere else and make a new character. Oh, wait... right. Well, just give Blizzard a call and have them make a copy of one of your character's save game files to somewhere else so you can make a new character. It's not like the disk storage is too expensive to handle hundreds of characters per player. Shouldn't be an issue.

      Lol, just kidding. Anybody who pays Blizzard money to enable this kind of behaviour deserves the slow-motion destruction of all single-player PC gaming that is the inevitable result. :)

    7. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      Some might say it's the pirates that force Diablo 3 to be like this, and if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have had this restriction. This isn't the first game to do it, and it won't be the last.

      The Sheeple as you call us, are just trying to get the game they want to play, and yes it sucks you need the internet all the time, but it's a minor nuisance to play Diablo 3 when I loved Diablo 2 so much.

    8. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      or more likely, they don't want you to sell it 2nd hand. So all the new players who want to play, cannot pick up a copy cheap off ebay, they'll have to buy the full-price retail version.

    9. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I admit I haven't checked this, but since the character lists are NOT shared between regions (Americas, Europe, Asia) would you not have an actual 3x10 characters available to you?

      So that's four difficulties, 30 characters. I'm pretty sure after 120 complete runs through the game you do not want to start char #121, and if you do ... consider seeking help. NO GAME is that entertaining.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheeple

      There's no such thing as someone who uses that word without being perfectly described by it.

    11. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How can anyone who played Diablo in the past say the reasons are needless? Diablo was horrible abused in online play.
      Considering it's around an auction house system, it is definitively needed.

      Now, could they have created a separate version for ONLY online play at a local lan? sure. But they would have had to make it so non of those characters or items can be played in 'internet' mode.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Diablo was horrible abused in online play.

      Erm... this is about forcing people to be online for single player. But this seems to be yet another instance of, "Well, some people do X, so punish everyone who wanted to play the game."

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Yeah, before I quit WoW I had my characters maxed out on one server and had 6 more on another server. Most of them were max level, too. I realized that I mostly have fun in WoW when I'm leveling characters. There really isn't that much to do in the end-game content without the game becoming a second job. I maxed out crafting on several of them just because it was something to do. After putting that much work into them I really didn't want to delete alts, even if I mostly didn't play them much at 85. They seem to have an idea of how their game should be played, and my idea of how I wanted to play it obviously didn't match up very well.

      Ultimately none of your characters really have any impact on the world in WoW. I think a "Build the World" model would probably be pretty popular, like the MUDs I used to play. If Notch ever makes a "World of Minecraft", I guess we'd find out if that's true.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    14. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by dehole · · Score: 1

      Just keep in mind that even though Blizzard may have put DRM into Diablo 3 to attempt to battle the pirates, the pirated copy will still be better than the legit one. So in the end it is the actual paying users that suffer, not the pirates.

    15. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by dehole · · Score: 1

      Well, provided that your okay with offline play. To play online, go legit.

    16. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by anerki · · Score: 1

      Isn't it 10 characters per realm, there being three realms: EU, US and APJ?

      That would bring it to 30 characters (though you have to switch your realm in Battle.NET account management).

      Has anyone tried this? (I'm only assuming this because with the login servers down, you can just switch to US or APJ and play there (while EU is down during primetime)).

      FJ.

      --
      Life is great! (as told by Lady Susan)
    17. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Technically you don't 'need' more than 10 slots, usually. The D2/D3 differences:

      *) D2 didn't let you switch skills (very often). Play an ice sorceress and want to play a fire sorceress? Time to roll a new character! In D3, you can just swap character skills.
      *) The Diablo games don't soulbind equipment, so you can just take one character's equipment and give it all to another.
      *) What is the difference between two wizards? The skills and gear.

      The only thing I needed lots of characters for in Diablo 2 were for item mules. I'm hoping the larger, shared stash in D3 eliminates that need.

    18. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After actually playing the game, I agree. You don't really need to make a new character. You can dynamically change your skills etc. in the game so making yet another character of the same class is somewhat pointless.

    19. Re:Let me have my many offline alts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still play on EU and KR with 20 other characters :)

  13. at least simcity 2013 will only need it to start by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    at least simcity 2013 will only need it to start the game.

    Now why can't it be once a week?

  14. Poor sampling method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Only the people with problems are here to post their complaints. Anyone who it's working fine for is too busy playing/enjoying it.

    Except the bastards who have to work, like me, that is.

    1. Re:Poor sampling method by hendridm · · Score: 2

      Except the bastards who have to work, like me, that is.

      Don't forget the bastards who are married and haven't gotten it approved by the wife yet. :(

    2. Re:Poor sampling method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I had no problems at all.

      But then I didn't buy Diablo III - there were already too many black marks on Blizzards' record to buy from them again.

      Anyone now complaining of problems - you have nobody to blame but yourself, there was more than adequate warning of how it was going to "work".

  15. How's the gameplay though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a huge Diablo junkie back in the day and I've been wondering how well the current version holds up? I've heard mixed reviews, ignoring the 'Horrible Game b/c of DRM, bla blah QQ' ones, since they're just whining and not based on the actual gameplay. I'm planning on buying this online tonight and hopefully playing tonight, but am still on the fence. I don't want to blow $60 on a game that is utterly disinteresting. Anyone here actually have it and had time to play? What are your thoughts?

    1. Re:How's the gameplay though? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      From my time in the beta, it's basically Diablo 2 again, with somewhat more interesting character build options (I was never a min-maxxer, though, so take this with a grain of salt) and updated graphics, which is basically all I was hoping for. :)

    2. Re:How's the gameplay though? by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      If you read above, some people are finding it too simplistic and shallow, others can't even get on to play or are getting kicked off after ten minutes. Try Torchlight II.

    3. Re:How's the gameplay though? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's D2 without the part where you need a spreadsheet to make a character build (admittedly, for many people that's the most fun part of the game). You don't make any significant character choices beyond class (much like Guild Wars).

      The gameplay seems a bit slower than D2, but that may just be low levels before all the gear speeds things up. The graphics are meh - nothing special or interesting there, just like the previous Diablos.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:How's the gameplay though? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Excellent. I was hoping for this.

      How's the visual aesthetic? Did they WOW-bunny it? Or does it still look hellish?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:How's the gameplay though? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Saying the graphics are nothing special these days means a vast improvement from before.

      When's the last time you ran Diablo or Diablo II? Try it, and see...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:How's the gameplay though? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      they're just whining

      I wouldn't say wanting to control the product you bought, wanting to be free from being treated like a pirate, and wanting to be free from pointless, idiotic DRM (online single player mode) is "just whining." I'd say those are very valid criticisms.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    7. Re:How's the gameplay though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say "those" are actually just one criticism. Valid, but just one. I think Blizzard could've achieved what they wanted in a manner very similar to how Diablo II ended up: Authenticate once to Battle.net, so the game is legit, then allow offline single player and LAN, but have separate, certified characters for Battle.net play. That way, people can play the game they bought, even during server maintenance or whatever. Also, they still have tight control over what people play together, on their servers, to ensure quality of service, rather than what happened in Diablo II's Open Battle.net (original Battle.net) - hacks, dupes, etc, galore.

      The problem, I think, is that people play single player, but then want to play with other people on that same character. To allow this, and preserve the authenticity of the game, Blizzard has to control how people play single player. I think Blizzard should've just kept the Diablo II model and say, in essence, "Suck it up. If you want to play online, and not worry about other people cheating, then that's where your character is going to live."

    8. Re:How's the gameplay though? by lgw · · Score: 1

      D2? Not so long ago. It was fine - and D3 is the same "fine", the graphics aren't bad or anything, just bland and boring. There are 100 "Diablo clones" out there, and quite a few of them have more interesting graphics than D3. Ever played Titan Quest? Gameplay is a total rip-off, but the graphics are great (mostly, it's the artwork choices, not the technology, I'd guess).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:How's the gameplay though? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Complaining because the item you bought doesn't work isn't whining.

      It feels like the game is an excuse to have an auction house. At least the Beta felt that way.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:How's the gameplay though? by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      It's certainly less dark and gothic than D1 and D2, but they do still have the characteristic diablo effects (i.e. bloated corpses that explode, disemboweled bodies, blood, bile, etc). The art style is different, but not necessarily in a bad way. It grows on you.

    11. Re:How's the gameplay though? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've given it a couple hours today. Aside from server issues (irritating, but whatever...) I have no complaints and only praise.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:How's the gameplay though? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Titan quest also had way more character customization in the skills department than any of the Diablo games.

    13. Re:How's the gameplay though? by lgw · · Score: 1

      I didn't find it so. It was neat that every character was effectively 2 classes, but just like diablo, there were 2 or ways to make each skill tree work, and one optimal point distribution for each of those.

      Plus of course, character customizaiton in Diablo is mostly about loot (which is why I'm not the biggest fan) and Titan Quest was far less rich in that regard.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  16. I did think of buying it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    up until they announced the DRM that they do not want to call DRM. I do not even consider torrenting it, but then I am old and I enjoy watching idiots getting their due.

    In defense of some idiots however, it is not their fault that Blizzard did not deliver on the servers ( especially since they forced so many onto them ).

    In a way, it is all a little sad. While in my household activision is a terrible curse word, I never would have thought that they would drag such an icon of a developer down.

    Shame on you blizz

  17. 8000? by ToiletBomber · · Score: 0

    Huh, now it's over 9!!

  18. Internet connection for single player mode? by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh look, here's another game I'm not going to buy. I don't care how good your game is, if you pull bullshit DRM stunts like this, it's off my radar now and forever.

    Maybe I'll download the pirated version and play that, just out of spite.

    1. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get your titties in a twist, Blizz doesn't care. And neither do we.

      Good luck getting a pirated version to work. And don't forget to write from jail.

    2. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh as if, you were going to pirate it anyway.

    3. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what it sounds like it'll be near impossible to pirate, but who cares a 12 year dev cycle is absurd. It isn't going to be like the original anyway. The art, engine and game play will be modernized. It might be good, but you should be buying it independent of the branding. There are a ton of better games with less shitty drm.

    4. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Pirated versions can't connect to Battle.net, which runs the game world. So your pirated version won't actually run.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    5. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do care. And your suggestion that he'd go to jail is laughable.

    6. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Really? In that case, Blizzard can go double-f__k themselves with the game boxes sideways.

      I'll just wait for Torchlight 2 to come out. It can do single player, and co-op via central server AND local lan.

    7. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will miss you

    8. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'll download the pirated version and play that, just out of spite.

      I would highly suggest that you don't even do that. Don't even give them the ammo of saying it was a "lost sale". Get Torchlight instead.

    9. Re:Internet connection for single player mode? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      I found that out recently. Apparently it won't even play, because world generation is done on their servers.

      I've already played Fate, which was the precursor to torchlight, and Torchlight itself. I'm eagerly anticipating T2. Especially considering that they will let you play on a local LAN!

      My collection of indy games vs big name is already at a 2-to-1 ratio, and these shenanigans are just going to make that ratio greater.

  19. Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not even 12 hours after launch Blizzard is taking down US zone servers down for 3hr maintenance. Task: Calculate uptime so far.

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5051765603?page=1

    11:30 a.m. PDT- We are in the process of performing an emergency maintenance for Diablo III servers in the Americas to resolve several issues that are currently impacting the game. This maintenance may cause some interruption in communication, ability to log in, use of in-game features, and disconnections. We anticipate all servers will be available for play at approximately 1:30 p.m. PDT. We will provide further updates as necessary. Thank you for your patience.

    10: 22 a.m. PDT- We are in the process of performing an emergency maintenance for all North American Diablo III servers to resolve several issues that are currently impacting the game. This maintenance may cause some interruption in communication, ability to log in, use of in-game features, and disconnections. We anticipate all servers will be available for play in approximately 1 hour.

    Thank you for your patience.

    1. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're shooting for "one nines" uptime. It's the Time Warner model.

    2. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I once had an IT guy explain to me that "one nines" is only 9%, when I complained they weren't providing even "one nice of uptime". Glad I don't work there any more.

      I'll likely keepmy focus on my current MMO for a few weeks until Blizzard once again figures out that many people play their games, and they should use some good server-side infrastructure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      It's usually meant to mean 90% but can mean 9% if you're really frustrated (90% comes to more than a month of downtime per year). Most IT shops shoot for at least three nines (about 8 hours of downtime per year) or four nines (less than an hour per year). Customer facing services usually want five nines (a little over 5 minutes per year of downtime). Six nines is the golden target (31.5 seconds of downtime per year).

    4. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Except that internal IT usually tries to weasle around "planned downtime". As an internal consumer of whatever service, I don't much care: downtime is downtime. At the company in question, sales had to be booked by hand on paper for 2 weeks because of "planned downtime" of the order entry system (why yes, there was an Oracle DB involved, however did you guess?). `Twas a silly place.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      When people say "we have 5 9's!!!one!eleven" I like to think to myself "Oh, cool! 9.9999% uptime!"

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      When I worked at a supposedly SAS-70 facility, I loved to joke around that our "5 9s" was actually 9.9999%. My boss was not amused (but the rest of us were, so oh well)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Planned downtime, theoretically at least, can be placed in non-critical timeslots. My company's just bought into a service with something like four nines uptime, but with fairly chunky "planned downtime" allowances. The mitigating factor is that it's a mostly employee-facing service, and planned downtimes can only be late at night and on weekends. Bearing in mind the users could tolerate considerably worse than four nines (it's a non-critical system), it's not a bad trade-off for such tight SLAs.

    8. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by Drophet · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's okay... I'll just play single---...Oh right... :(

    9. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      FTFY.

      Three nines could also mean more than 3 months of downtime per year and four nines (4 months). This would indicate an employer with a very generous holiday policy. Six nines is the golden target (that is 6 months of downtime per year).

    10. Re:Diablo III servers down for maintenance... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      LISTER: Hang on, he can't do this. Holly's got an IQ of six thousand!
      HOLLY: Yeah. Right on.
      QUEEG: Is that what he told you?
      LISTER: Well, what is it, then?
      QUEEG: It has a six in it, but it's not six thousand.
      CAT: What is it?
      QUEEG: Six.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  20. This whole article could have been summed up with by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Error 37

  21. Long term support, removal of security, etc by perpenso · · Score: 5, Informative

    Blizzard is one of the few companies to patch their older games years later to no longer require the CD's to play. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road they patched Diablo III to no longer require an internet connection.

    Just to elaborate on this for those unfamiliar with Blizzard's older games. It is *not* that they simply put out a patch to remove the CD requirement.

    The older starcraft and diablo games have been actively supported for over 10 years. Periodic updates for bug fixes, exploit fixes, new features, new support for communities and tournament organizations (thinking about some starcraft 1 updates), etc.

    Blizzard has a team dedicated to actively maintaining and enhancing their "old" games. It is *not* an afterthought for the original dev team if and when they have time like at other companies.

    1. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'actively maintaining' is an overstatement. Usually Blizzard promises some patch 'soon' and 2years later it is still nowhere in sight. I don't know if WC3 players got their promised last patch ever. In case of SC1 few patches fixing meaningless shit nobody cared about, botched the community antihack and few other useful features for no benefit whatsoever and the community had to fix the shit again instead of waiting for some blizzard intern to change 3 lines of code and get approval for release which could take months.

    2. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by addie · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately as I learned last week when I bought a copy of Diablo II from the Blizzard store, that's not always the case; D2 isn't supported under OSX 10.7 and above. That's not Blizzard's fault, as it was Apple who removed support for PowerPC applications, but it's an exception to your argument.

    3. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 1

      Hey all I know, is a bought the game, installed it, and was playing it until 10 minutes ago.

      Anyone remember Rage? Who played that on the first day? first week?

    4. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all before they were bought by Activision.
      So far, it's going ok, but I fear for the future...

    5. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      They were not bought by Activision. Their parent company, Vivendi, bought Activision. Activision and Blizzard are subsidiaries of Activision Blizzard.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    6. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and somewhat admirable.

      However, it is not what I am expecting of them. The CD requirement should have never been there in the first place, and I don't find it reasonable to expect updates to code 10 years later for a game.

      What I do expect is to be able to play a game 10 years later without any special authorization from servers, or for that matter, any knowledge by anyone that I am even doing it.

    7. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Those patches stopped a few years ago because that was the Old Blizzard. This DRM loving company that's been around for the last few years is the new Activision-Blizzard that hates it's customers and wants to punish you for buying their product. It's a real shame, because Blizzard used to make some of the best games and had the best customer service in the industry.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember Rage? Who played that on the first day? first week?

      People using hardware without shit OpenGL drivers? *Cough* ATI/AMD

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    9. Re:Long term support, removal of security, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just fuck apple. noone but applefanboys cares about apple anyway.

  22. And a game I won't be buying. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you guys. No, piracy isn't an issue, not even close. People would have bought this. Just wait till you see the login servers emulated, yeah, then you can cry about piracy you actual fuck-ups.

    I'd seriously rather actually go on Skype to verify that I bought the game, be placed on a page on their website to state that I bought it, than require a constant internet connection.
    Any retard who thinks always-online verification is a good system needs to actually be shot.
    They are slowly killing the industry and blaming piracy.
    When people pull shit like this, do you blame ANYONE for pirating a game?
    YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, go get his by a bus. In fact, no, that will likely get the drivers life ruined, go fall down a cliff instead.

    Thanks for ruining another series.

  23. So far... kind of dull. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lack luster story and quests, progression is on rails, no character customization and the itemization is dull. Bit of a let down overall. The defense is that the game doesn't REALLY start till nightmare difficulty, but that feels like a cop out to me.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:So far... kind of dull. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying it's a perfect successor to Diablo 1 and 2. Got it.

  24. Yeah but is it.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Going to be as much of a steaming turd as Duke Nukem Forever was? Honestly, a lot of these much delayed sequels are turning out to be a waste of time for players.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Yeah but is it.... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Honestly, a lot of these much delayed sequels are turning out to be a waste of time for players.

      That is not completely true. SC2 was pretty awesome. I am still irritated that there is not LAN play though. I do agree that Blizzard needs to have shorter periods between games of a sequel. And Valve for that matter. I am still waiting for HL3.

    2. Re:Yeah but is it.... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Diablo 3 isn't bad, but isn't great either. So so. I'm only playing it for the story and some mindless click-through action. But I already knew this going into it, so I'll at least be enjoying it for what it is. YMMV.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Yeah but is it.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Hey, now - I really liked DNF! I was a great retro-blast when it finally came out, really different from the common crap shooters. Who cares if the graphis were dated, it was sill a fun shoot-em-up.

      D3 so far fails to impress - it's just more D2, now with extra server downtime.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. So I was playing GW2 during launch and... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Fun little tidbit. Guild Wars 2 stress test was tonight and it overlapped with D3 launch (started a few hours before D3 launch and ended a few hours after it).

    When D3 launch moment came, you could see many people basically vanished from the game. You suddenly didn't have full servers anymore, structured PvP had a whole lot less games available and so on.

    Considering that D3 launch was done terribly, I heard several guildies complain loudly on the voice comm about not being able to get into the game at all, and the fact that GW2 was only available for a few hours, you can tell just how immensely popular D3 is.

    1. Re:So I was playing GW2 during launch and... by metalgamer84 · · Score: 1

      I will be buying GW2 the day it launches. Same with Torchlight 2. I will not be purchasing D3 in the foreseeable future. Id rather give my money to companies that aren't trying to screw over its user base and are actually trying to make great games that people want to play with as few problems as possible.

  26. Is This Progress vs Tradition? by EXTomar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've viewed this "controversy" with curiosity and it somewhat mimics progress vs tradition arguments. I'm not trolling but honestly looking for insight:

    - Day after day we have people happy to play single player games in online systems without complaint from consoles to phones to even Facebook. Why is this game different? The explanations so far lacking because the most compelling one is that "Diablo 2" used to do it. That doesn't mean I don't think an offline mode would have been impossible but that it isn't required.
    - Do we operate under the illusion that all PC games are portable? I remember trying to play "Diablo 2" which has an offline mode, on vacation and on airplanes and other places and it was a miserable experience. "Diablo 3" is not meant to be portable or played in an environment with spotty power or spotty connectivity. Why do people insist on this mode when it seems more like an environment and usability issue instead of a missing feature? I suspect people believe that if "Diablo 3" had an offline mode they could play it anywhere but experience has showed me with "Diablo 2" that never happens nor is worth it.
    - Are we denying the advantages this tech brings just to enhance the argument of what it takes away? I like the idea of storing characters "on their systems" instead of my computer since I've lost "Diablo 2" saves when machines and hard drives die. I like validation of characters, items, hosted environments because I've also lost a ton of characters to just joining the wrong games. It is not impossible to support both a completely validated system and offline but I would always lean in supporting the validated system when it comes to active support.

    Basically I'm unconvinced that an offline mode is valuable let alone an effective workaround. Even if "Diablo 3" had an offline mode, we'd still have an article on /. complaining about how Blizzard/Activision/Blizzard-Activition/Satan is evil and can't handle it. Blizzard needs to address connectivity issues and delivery on the features they said they were supporting.

    1. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not trolling but honestly looking for insight

      Here's the insight: The server for the US zone are offline for "emergency maintenance." This means people who purchased Diablo III cannot play the game in any way shape or form, including launching a single player campaign.

      I will repeat that again - On launch day, nobody in the US can play the game because of the DRM.

      If you can't see the problem with that, I don't think you will ever see it.

    2. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by anonymov · · Score: 2

      You must also like losing characters, items and hosted environments and getting locked out of the game thanks to bugs and connection troubles and game balance changing patches you can't reject.

      That's what I was sorely missing from my single player games, yep.

      P.S.: With a bit of symlinking, I just make most of my games save on Dropbox. It's free, it retains older versions if corruption happens and it leaves me offline copy, which gives ability to easily move to another cloud storage service. No need for Blizzard lock-in.

    3. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Day after day we have people happy to play single player games in online systems without complaint from consoles to phones to even Facebook. Why is this game different?

      I'm not happy about it. But the difference is that this is a game that you have installed on your hard drive that has a single player mode. And with it, it needlessly forces you to be online even if you don't wish to be. I believe any game like it that does the same thing is also garbage.

      Do we operate under the illusion that all PC games are portable?

      No. I operate under the (obvious) illusion that they won't cripple their own game's functionality with DRM.

      Are we denying the advantages this tech brings just to enhance the argument of what it takes away?

      I am, because I have absolutely no option to choose anything else.

      Basically I'm unconvinced that an offline mode is valuable

      That's your opinion.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by RogueyWon · · Score: 2

      Ok, I'll bite on this and admit that you have at least the bones of a reasonable argument there, and that a couple of your points are valid. However, I don't believe that taken as a whole, they amount to an argument against Diablo 3 needing an offline mode.

      Over on the consoles, games that actually require online connectivity to play are few and far between. There are certainly games that lose a good bit of functionality if there's no internet connection present; Gran Turismo 5 on the PS3 and Your Shape 2012 on the 360/Kinect stand out as good examples. But the core gameplay is at least accessible offline. There are a couple of exceptions - mainly a few Capcom downloadable games on the PS3. Don't buy them. Certainly not after last summer's PSN outage made them unplayable for months.

      Similarly, all of the iPad games that I have been willing to pay money for are playable offline. There are others that don't meet that criterion - and I don't buy them. Facebook gaming? Feels like a step back to me, not progress.

      I don't think I've ever argued that all PC games must be playable offline. I excluded MMOs in my earlier post because the very nature of the game requires an always online connection. I suppose I could have excluded multiplayer-online FPSes as well, as they fall into the same category, but I don't buy those anyway (not for ethical reasons, but rather because deathmatch as a game-mode hasn't really appealed to me for 7 or 8 years now). In fact, even with those, I'd expect an offline bots-mode, as it's fairly trivial to implement.

      But if a game is to require an always-on connection, then it needs to have features which are both essential to the gameplay and of benefit to the player. And Diablo 3 fails on both counts here. The big thing in Diablo 3 is the auction house - which has in-game currency and real-cash variants. The in-game currency auction house is of some benefit to the average player, but nothing I've seen thus far suggests it's even close to being essential for play. The real-money auction house is frankly only likely to be of benefit to a small hardcore and to Blizzard's coffers.

      And I'd dispute that Diablo 2 was "miserable" offline. I moved house last month and spent about 5 days without a home internet connection while I waited for my ISP to hook my cable up. I used some of that time (when I wasn't unpacking boxes) to replay Diablo 2, to remind myself of the plot. The game hasn't aged all that well in some respects, but it was far from miserable. Certainly, it was more enjoyable than the 20 minutes I have just now spent copy-pasting my password over and over as I tried to login to Diablo 3's servers so I could play a singleplayer game.

    5. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by jxander · · Score: 0

      But it's not a single-player game. D3 is, in essence, an MMO with a better mechanic for preventing greifing if you chose to solo. Unlike WoW, et al, if you decide to run solo, everyone else simply ceases to exist. Which makes it a pretty sweet MMO, if you ask me.

      Does launch day log-jam kinda suck? Yeah. But if you were willing to pre-purchase and stay up till midnight (or 3am Eastern) and log onto slashdot to bitch about it ... well, you're not a lost sale to them. You're probably one of their best customers, just whiny

      --
      This signature is false.
    6. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is obvious that not implementing standalone play was a piracy prevention move by blizzard, but on just the consideration of online play, a good question to ask oneself is this: assuming I had to choose, do I prefer a game that tolerates heavy first day launch traffic load by having little or no central server requirements or do I prefer a game that validates users actions to reduce cheating and such?

      Of course, there is no right answer to that personal preference. Also, it may be possible to make these things not mutually exclusive. Still, I had no desire for single mode gameplay, and I'm willing to tolerate launch problems rather than trust clients not to cheat in online play. My ideal solution would be this: offline single player(or even lan) support, and centralized official blizzard servers for online play. Maybe solve the launch load issues by having an even more gradual rollout of the service or possibly mitigate it by simply pointing people to the offline play until load comes down or something.

      Anyway, I guess my point is that I only have one criticism of what blizzard chose to do, which was to not implement offline play. The rest of it, including these online server problems are in and of themselves understandable, and perhaps even to be expected.

    7. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except even at it's best it doesn't come close to being an MMO. Games are limited to a player cap of what, 4? That's a Multi-player Online, although not massive in anyway except price and hype.

      I had beta access since some time in November. I played it on and off a good bit. I frankly prefered the older skill swapping system although the skill system as a whole leaves a lot to be desired. One of my complaints about Torchlight was that the skills were so limited and 66% of the skill trees were identical between character classes. And now Diablo 3 has come along and taken a page from their book and gone with a dumbed down skill system.

      And they completely nuked the idea of having individualized characters. With skill swaping the way it is everyone is practically speaking identical. That would be great if this were a Team Fortress style game, but it's in the Diablo franchise, character building was a large part of the fun.

    8. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Zephyn · · Score: 1

      Not every change should be considered "progress". Especially changes that ruin the entertainment experience that the customer thought they were paying for.

    9. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      . . . it's a sweet feature to remove everyone from a Massivly Mutli-player Online game?

    10. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What is the greatest thing used on an MMO?
      The Auction house. Not quests, not end game raids, the freaking auction house.

      Diablo III has an auction house that anyone can buy or sell loot at.

      THIS is why there is MMO like DRM.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "But it's not a single-player game. "

      But you are a moron. All old games had multiplayer and singleplayer AND all the code and assets were OWNED by the player, you never had to worry about being disconnected or monitored 24/7. You could always play your game when and where you wanted to. With online you cannot, your rights are being stripped away from you. "Online DRM" is the same as BREAKING the game, using legal conartistry and consumer apathy to force a broken product on everyone.

      You're PAYING you deserve to get a copy you own and control, period. The "online business model" is bullshit corporate speak to take stupid chumps to the cleaners.

    12. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Simploid · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them!!

    13. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      PS. Even though I posted disagreeing with parent, the fact it's been modded down (and indeed, not modded up) irritates me profoundly.

      If ever a reminder was needed that slashdot moderation options are not "+1 agree" and "-1 disagree".

    14. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by raynet · · Score: 1

      Generally single player games don't require griefing protection.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    15. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by anerki · · Score: 1

      I will repeat that again - On launch day, nobody in the US can play the game because of the DRM.

      Correction: you can't play in the US realm. You can in the Asian and European.

      --
      Life is great! (as told by Lady Susan)
    16. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can switch realms in the login menu options but yeah that is no substitute for your own realm characters.

    17. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I would guess the Economy is actually what you are talking about. The auction house just facilitates the economic actions. And in game economies are a big part of many games. I've been playing Eve for over a month now and the Economy is pretty much the only part of the game I've really enjoyed so far. But I very much doubt that even a majority of players would agree that the Economy, especially in a Diablo game, is the most important aspect.

      Diablo 2 has had a thriving economy on and off for more than a decade now. And it managed to support multiple modes of play ranging from offline single player to online only multiplayer. So are we going to call Diablo 2 a MMO now aswell? And why couldn't we have the same play options for Diablo 3 as we had for Diablo 2?

    18. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      My preferences are exactly opposite yours: I don't play MMO's, or any games that require a constant internet connection. I played Diablo 2 exclusively in single-player and never had a problem with it. In fact, I liked it. (I tried online a couple of times and considered that a mostly miserable experience.) I don't have any interest at all in a "completely validated system" but I do have an interest in playing while offline.

      I really loved the first two games in the series. Played both a ton. I'd buy a copy yesterday if I could play standalone, but I really and truly don't like the online requirement so I'm not going to buy. It's not so much because of any grand philosophy about DRM or anything, just an additional hassle and restriction I don't want.

    19. Re:Is This Progress vs Tradition? by jxander · · Score: 1

      You're PAYING you deserve to get a copy you own and control, period. The "online business model" is bullshit corporate speak to take stupid chumps to the cleaners.

      Entitled much? You're paying, so you deserve to get what they're selling. Period. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

      Do you buy a car, and then a week later say "I bought a car with a full gas tank. I deserve to have it full ALWAYS. This 'pay as you go' business model is bullshit"

      Do you bitch that NetFlix, Blockbuster, etc don't let you keep their movies? Are you upset by the fact that your subway sammich doesn't come with a happy ending?

      Blizzard never hid their agenda, never lied to anyone or fooled you into thinking that an offline mode existed. It is exactly as advertised, with all the benefits and pitfalls inherent therein: Caveat emptor

      --
      This signature is false.
  27. Well, I'll be a Monk-ee by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

    Actually, I am...Level 18. Took 43 minutes to login, has run pretty well since then for my party of 4. We all did D1 & 2 together, so this is old and new with better graphics.

    Won't comment on DRM, etc. Buy or not buy, choose you must.

    For me, it's fun with friends playing a game.

    --
    I am my own gestalt.
    1. Re:Well, I'll be a Monk-ee by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      Did it take longer to login or reach level 18? Sounds like it will be a short experience.

  28. Re:Stop whining by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    What if you're in a place where Time Warner is the only broadband available? They're not exactly known for speed or reliability.

  29. I am most likely not getting it after its test. by antdude · · Score: 0

    http://aqfl.net/node/9811 for my brief review.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  30. Diablo 3 for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I had signed up for the wow annual pass. Then I asked to be removed from it a month later after I realized I could not stand the game any longer. Blizzard support complied and stopped my sub. So I come back months later to restart my sub when I found out some old friends were playing, and they restarted my annual pass. So I asked them to fix it. They refused. So I canceled my bank card. My wow account is frozen, but interestingly enough, my Diablo 3 is active. Muwahahaaaaa! I am currently level 10, even if they catch it, I win.

    1. Re:Diablo 3 for free by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      +1 Hilarious. Bonus points, they still had to pay the transaction fee for the decline.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Diablo 3 for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you made an agreement with Blizzard that you would pay for them for a year of WoW which you also agreed at the time could not to cancelled for any reason, then you complain that they wouldn't cancel it?

      You seem like a real swell character, also someone who clearly reads agreements before getting into them.

      I also guess you will also complain to them that the next time you want to play WoW and they refuse to accept credit cards from you any more.

      In regards to your "free" Diablo III, when the next removal script runs, you will no longer have a Diablo III license.

  31. Re:Stop whining by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

    How about I can whine about an always-on internet requirement just the same as you can whine about my whining? And how about I whine about it and not buy the game so that when the suits see the game sales are low they don't assume it's just because they didn't pay for enough advertising.

  32. Meh blizzard by letherial · · Score: 2

    So far, i have bought a game that i cannot seem to play. It did take hours last night to get logged in, i played for a bit but it was bed time. Got some time today, but now the servers are down for patching....

    So i paid 60.00 for a game i cant even play single player without the OK from blizzard.

    So here is the thing, diablo 2 was a great game, the animations where awesome, the story was compelling and the game play was fun. I am not so sure you get any of these from 3.The animations are more drawings then anything else, the skills are all locked so you cant switch them easy; also, once again, here we are starting in tristan....its like imagination went out the window.

    Its not to say its fun, the hour i got to play was fun...not diablo 2 fun, but fun; I could be very wrong about this game, act 2 might bring in some cool stuff....but with all the log in problems and having big brother blizzard controlling when i play a 60.00 game, i honestly suggest people dont buy it, Simply to stand up for what they are doing. If i would of realized that single player was going to make me log in, i wouldn't of ever bought this game.

    Should of done my research, o well...hope nobody else falls in this trap.

    1. Re:Meh blizzard by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Tristran? Apparently you didn't play the originals very much either.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Meh blizzard by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      lol I can't even quote you correctly. Doh!

      You said "Tristan" - as in the person's name. It's Tristram.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Meh blizzard by letherial · · Score: 1

      I didnt realize that in order to play a game you needed to memorize the spelling every single thing (citys, characters, etc..) ....I guess all those hours of playing diablo 2 up to hell level was just me being stupid, all i really needed to do was memorize words to get my diablo cred..but you are half correct, the first one i thought was stupid and didn't really ever play it.

      Now the question remains, exactly how much little info do you need of me to come up with even more wild assumptions?

    4. Re:Meh blizzard by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      Considering that Tristram is where the series started, it's one of those places you should spell correctly. The area has a huge importance on the series as a whole.

    5. Re:Meh blizzard by letherial · · Score: 2

      I am shocked that the name Tristram is of such vital importance that now 2 people has made a utterly pointless comment, requiring me to make a utterly pointless comment...Lets stick with facts, and the facts are, this is completely off the topic of my post

      I dont give a shit about the spelling of the name of the town, tristan, tristraminang, who the fuck cares? and why does it matter so much? my point was, they didnt get creative, not the name of the stupid town, seriously.....lets just drop this because i am losing IQ points by reading your comments.

    6. Re:Meh blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would assume you have any IQ points to lose, which is clearly impossible given the way you just managed to retroactively justify the comments those other guys made to you.

    7. Re:Meh blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also get upset that Spiderman takes place in New York? Should they make a new name up to be creative?

      They put it in the same town for plot reasons. Don't be dense.

  33. Re:Stop whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop reading the whines.
    How about that, dumbfuck?

  34. Re:Stop whining by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    Then move, or start complaining to the people that actually matter.

    It's not like any of us can fix it for you.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  35. Re:Stop whining by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop whining about needing an internet connection.

    I'd say it's a valid criticism.

    You see, different people value different things. Some people value being free from DRM, and others do not. The fact that you don't agree with their criticism doesn't make them wrong.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  36. Re:Hey Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They couldnt hear you over the sound of the money counters.

  37. Re:Stop whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop lying about what constitutes "whining" while engaging in the real thing yourself.

  38. The important thing by Tanman · · Score: 2

    The important thing about the D3 launch is this:

    People who bought the game online and pre-downloaded it with the advertising from Blizzard that they should (paraphrased) "download it early so you can play the minute it goes live," still cannot play the game.

  39. Re:Stop whining by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

    its very valid - while I am fortunate enough to have a nicely working ADSL connection (except when it fails, like it did yesterday night)(and guess what I'll be wanting to do when I have no net? yup - play games) there are many people who have crap or next to no connections.

    My mate lives a long way from the exchange, he gets 400kbps download. There was a TV program on the other week about a couple living in the middle of nowhere that couldn't even get that.

  40. More Innovation: Single-player Queue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought I would pop onto D3 during lunch now that the servers are back up. I just want to play solo. Blizzard: Diablo 3 servers are full, please wait in a QUEUE... Unbelievable. I'm filled with so much shame for buying into all of this.

  41. Re:at least simcity 2013 will only need it to star by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well.. they need it to control the amount of pokemons- er, I mean "unique" loot - in the game. gotta have 'em all!

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  42. Downtime Extended Until 530pm EDT by slycer9 · · Score: 1

    The downtime for the login servers (again, to play a single-player campaign) has been extended to 3:30PM EDT.
    At one point I was able to get into a queue (for my single-player campaign) but was randomly disconnected.

    I could give a damn about duping and an exploited environment, I never played D2 online and I don't plan on playing D3 online, that's what I have WoW for.

    I knew this going in, I was disappointed (I travel extensively, and it's rather difficult to find access points in the Southern US) since I wouldn't be able to play on-the-go, but I said 'well at least it'll be hella fun' when I'm home or at MOST of my destinations.

    This is the first time I've broken down and actually purchased a DRM game of this type, and even though I realize that it's launch day, I'm still regretting it.

    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
    1. Re:Downtime Extended Until 530pm EDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not even as fun anyway, a dumbed down Diablo game basically.

  43. Blizzard by dimko · · Score: 0

    FU! You don't want my money you wont get them. Ryzom looks like it will be my gameof choice. evne though it's sucky ATM, at least they do effort for multi platform. FU Blizzard. FU again. You support Mac, but Mac doesnt have even 50% of hardcore geeks whod appreciate your games. FU sideways.

  44. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    plenty of people were bitching about the drm because it prevented them completely from playing.... wtf do you do with a steady internet connection except bitch on forums if the login servers aren't working?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  45. Meh, just a nethack clone. by HeckRuler · · Score: 0

    Sorry. Didn't notice this being released over the sound of all my friends playing Dungeon Crawl.
    (No, really, I haven't seen my wife in the past week. All I hear is rumblings from the basement about a naga grappler. And every time I see these two other guys it's just a constant stream of how much permadeath sucks and how they need to get back to their wizard or KoBe)

  46. Playing single-player _because_ you're offline by Mr+EdgEy · · Score: 2

    I think something that has been missed by posters so far on the DRM issue is the fact that, if/when my internet connection fails, often the first thing I do is go looking for single player games I have installed on the computer.

    If you can't do that, it rather defeats the point of single player mode, at least to me. If the Internet connection is up I'm generally doing more productive things than playing games nowadays.

    1. Re:Playing single-player _because_ you're offline by slycer9 · · Score: 1

      That was exactly my point, in another comment.

      --
      Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
    2. Re:Playing single-player _because_ you're offline by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Bugbear of mine is Steam Offline Mode, which doesn't work when unexpectedly offline (connection drop, hardware fault etc). You need to play to be offline, or your library is locked.

      Personally when the internet goes down and I have some spare time I go read a book in the garden now, and don't by games on Steam anymore. Fool me once...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  47. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Beerdood · · Score: 2

    Fair enough - single player seems like it shouldn't be required. But from what I read about it, your single player character is tied into your account (same char when switching between multi player and single player). Sort of like an MMO - maybe done for hacking / cheat prevention - if all your character data is saved online on Blizzard's servers, then it makes hacking your character a lot harder, or near impossible.

    I'm not saying the DRM isn't annoying for single player, but a 10-second check from my stable internet connection before playing a marathon session isn't going to make me stop purchasing the game, and neither is a few hours of downtime on launch day. But that's the alarmist reaction I'm seeing in "insightful" comments peppered on this thread.

    Yes, it sucks if you have little or no internet, and I sympathize with you then. But I'd willing to bet 95%+ of the posters here have DSL / cable / better and just like to bitch about any and all DRM

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  48. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DRM is bad because at best it is not noticeable. That is the best case, if you are lucky. In the worst case, it ruins your game. On launch day. Also, it doesn't even stop piracy.

    Why should anyone like something that doesn't accomplish its purpose, and more often than not causes you, a fine and paying customer, problems?

    And that's not even starting into the issues of liberty.

  49. No LAN Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    means I for one won't be buying it.

  50. Hackers and Botters! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one am glad Diablo 3 is online only. If that's what Blizzard needs to help prevent hackers and botters, so be it. Don't forget there is a real money auction house in game, and people who put REAL DOLLARS into their character (beyond the cost of the game) will feel more invested in it than regular players.

    Diablo 2 on Battle.net was basically botters farming gear and spammers advertising the sites that sold it. I find it less of a problem to be online constantly than to deal with the hordes of illegitimates that plagued D2.

  51. Thank you? No SORRY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of arrogant pricks - they can't even say sorry... they assume you are giving them patience when you are probably cursing them to the seventh level of hell...

  52. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

    Lots of Porn!

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  53. Rant from a console player of D1 + Diablo-clones by CronoCloud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's May 15th and I'm going to rant, and you know why: Diablo.

    I have a love/hate relationship with Blizzard. I love Diablo, but I absolutely LOATHE Blizzard as a developer.

    First: Go here and page down to the Diablo section: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/legacy/

    Do you see the PSone version listed? No. And you won't see the PSone version of Warcraft II listed either! It's not as if those games got bad ratings either, both got ABOVE average ratings at the time. It's like Blizzard doesn't want to admit one of their premier franchises had a console release at all.

    And for those who don't know, this is the PSone version:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv5dQwCFWoQ

    It actually plays better (and faster) with direct movement control. And it's the ONLY version to have French language support, not even the PC version has that. (also German and Swedish even in the US version)

    Then they did Diablo II...which I've never played because it never got ported. This is D2 as it's called:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea8Ma7qqQaQ

    Like D1, it was isometric 2D and since it came out in 2000 the PS2 should have been able to handle a port easy. But Blizzard never did it, and I think the following is the reason why:

    2001's, Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srBRB18mHEs

    Notice how in the review, Diablo is mentioned? BGDA is a Diablo clone, and a very good one, with a true 3D engine with a rotatable camera. It was a VERY popular game. The company that made it, Snowblind, licensed the engine out and there were more similar games made a LOT more. Good times, good times. Blizzard simply couldn't release D2 on consoles with Snowblind having trumped them with their engine.

    And as always Blizzard said, "Oh were not doing Diablo III yet, it''l be ready when it's ready"

    And my thoughts were, "yeah, if you were still had theconsole developer get-up-and-go like in the old days D3 would have been out in 2002! Because the sequel comes out in 2 years or less or heads will roll. Lazy Bums."

    It didn't come out in 2003, or 2004, or 2005, or 2006, etc etc. Really what were they doing? It's not like a developer can't develop an MMO AND single player games at the same time......Square-Enix did....twice.

    So eventually D3 was announced in development, and eventually video was released in 2008.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NR6XNYs8f4

    When I was that video my first thought: "Did Blizzard buy Snowblind's engine, because it looks EXACTLY like a snowblind engine game on the PS2."

    in 2010 they posted job listings for people with console experience for a Diablo-related concept. So I expected the game to be cross platform from the start But then Blizzard executives said things that implied that a console release wasn't certain, very very stupid things
    One was reported to say that D3's gameplay "might" work on consoles. Might? It's rather funny that he said, "Might" Since
    the original Diablo game was released for the PSone... in 1998. Doesn't he remember?

    He also said that the controls might be an issue. Well now, considering D1 was released for the pre-dual shock PSone
    I don't think that's a problem at all. Heck, the modern consoles have USB ports so a keyboard+ mouse control
    option could be thrown in alongside a traditional controller one. In fact, having played both the PC and PSone versions of
    Diablo, I can say that the control pad suits the game better because it's less stressful on the hands. I can play the PSone
    version for far far longer without crippling hand fatigue/pain.

    In an interview Alex Mayberry is quoted as saying: "We want to give console players the Diab

  54. Am I the only one.. by wynterwynd · · Score: 2

    ... who just didn't really like the game?

    Maybe I'm just older and my tastes have changed, maybe I didn't give it enough of a chance, but for whatever reason I didn't really like Diablo 3.

    I played in the Beta for a few weeks, on and off - it never really hooked me. It was prettier than Diablo 2, but it didn't seem graphically more impressive than WoW. The colors were wrong, too bright and bold - big departure from D1 and D2. The gameplay was... kinda boring and repetitive. I didn't really care why I was going to click these things to death, and even the act of clicking them to death got very tiresome very quickly.

    The class system was stagnant and unfeatured, linear progression unlocks are dull - I did hear about using runes to change talents/skills, maybe that's where the spice is but I saw none of that. The enemies were very standard fare with zero challenge and no real hooks to keep me playing. Again, maybe that changed with the full release, but I just don't feel the need to pay $60 to find out.

    Maybe I've been MMOing too much but I've come to expect a little more thought required and challenge from my games. Or maybe I'm just getting old. Either way I Loved Diablo 1 and 2, but this one just didn't have the magic juice in it for me.

    --
    "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
    1. Re:Am I the only one.. by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      I didn't like the art/feel at first either, but as you progress past the stages available in the beta the art grows on you. At least, it did on me (got to play for a few hours before the servers went down again). And to be fair, I don't think anyone liked the beginning stages in D2 either, i.e. for the past decade or so on battle net you'd just have a friend rush you into hell mode. People might play through for the story the first time, but beyond that the levels from 1 to 70 or so were just a stepping stone to getting to the end-game stage. The fact that you feel unenthusiastic about the early stages of D3 aren't particularly surprising. But based on what I've seen, it looks like it'll be a worthy successor to D1 and D2.

    2. Re:Am I the only one.. by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one. I loved Diablo 2. Completely underwhelmed by Diablo 3 so far.

      Add to that the shitty DRM, and the fact that the slightest hiccup kicks you out of the game mid-play, losing progress I assume... and that's just unacceptable.

      I cannot recommend the game to anyone.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    3. Re:Am I the only one.. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I didn't have a problem with the number of clicks required. I tend to setup my attacks so that the bread and butter is on the right click. So play largely requires holding down the right mouse button full time. This causes the character to move towards the cursor and attack anything that gets in the way with the bread and butter attack. This is the same thing that I did for most character builds in D2.

      I was satisfied with it graphically for the most part. I think I prefered the cgi cut scenes in D2 to the game engine stuff in D3, it just feels cruder. Honestly Red vs. Blue comes across better in their Halo episodes.

      You are dead on, in my opinion, with the bad class and character progression system though. This really feels like a huge step backwards from what was available in D2. Even once they added the respec tokens in D2 they were uncommon enough that people generally put some thought into how best to build their character.

    4. Re:Am I the only one.. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Wow, I'm not sure I ever got a character to level 70. Never had that much time or patience, and by that far through it always started to feel repetitive. If that's where the game is supposed to *start*, then it took far too much time and energy to get there.

    5. Re:Am I the only one.. by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      A few months ago I dug out my D2 disks and got it all up to date. I played through Act 1 and realized that I just don't like this style of gameplay anymore. I uninstalled the next morning. I realized then that I'm pretty unlikely to enjoy D3 either.

      I wouldn't mind playing through it to see the story, but that's not worth $60 to me and I might eventually be able to see most of it via YouTube anyway.

    6. Re:Am I the only one.. by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      It's true that In single player it would take a long time, but on battle net with a friend rushing, you could get to 70 in a day or two.

  55. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "I'm not sure why slashdot hates the DRM here so much."

    Because it's people like you who allow corporations to strip us of our rights to own the products we buy by blinding buying their bullshit. Most older slashdotters remember when you owned the games you bought and could play them without the hassle of the nanny corporation to look over your shouldre 'authenticating' your copy every time you want to play a game YOU PAID FOR. If you're paying you deserve to own it, this idea that when you pay for a product it is 'never yours' and you should just bow down for a bunch of greedy corporations who don't give a fuck about you is just fucking DISTURBING.

    Most intelligent people on slashdot don't like the way gaming is going. We all grew up during era's where we owned the games we bought (effectively) both console and PC. Even console games have been getting worse with 'already on disc dlc' and 'online passes' and other nonsense. The game industry is corrupt and out of control and it's people like you that tick us off.

    As time as gone on DRM has gotten more intrusive and restrictive. Do you think it's just going to stop?

  56. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Really mods? Not seeing anything terribly insightful here...

    I agree. I believe it's too obvious to be considered insightful.

    Hacks / cheats.

    Right. Punish everyone for that. Or you could just... separate online and offline characters.

    There's a very absolutist position stance taken by many... that *all* DRM is inherently evil and they'll never buy any game with DRM.

    I like to control the things I buy.

    then quit whining about *all* DRM. Some is bad (Ubisoft), and some is barely noticable (Blizzard), it's not so black & white.

    It's not so easy to make criticism go away. That's your opinion, and I have mine. To me, it's perfectly black and white.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  57. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DRM is certainly "Barely Noticeable". 2 million people that pre-ordered probably don't notice that they can't play. The reason that people here hate DRM is because DRM means if I purchase a product legally then at some point it will break by design. Blizzard specifically advertised "download the game early so you can play the moment it launches". Well, it launched, and not many people could play it. The launch day log jam is expected for a mmorpg. But if I want to play a game as strictly a single player experience, I shouldn't need to deal with that shit. The fact is, the whole point of DRM is to limit my ability to use something that I owned, and to enforce planned obsolescence. And it's counter productive, because when the pirates inevitably crack it, they now have a better, more functional game than those who legally purchased it.

  58. Re:Rant from a console player of D1 + Diablo-clone by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, the N64 version of StarCraft was fucking awful - and I've played it. Controls and horrible and hard to use, the interface was terrible, and the game was laggy as shit.

    And health orbs? Really? You're claiming that that's from Marvel Ultimate Alliance when games from the bloody 80's had that (on PC no less, not console)?Sounds like the lazy elitist might be you.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  59. Re:Stop whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it doesn't have to always do with DRM. I get most of my free time to play these games while on vacation or traveling. Most of those times, I don't have an internet connection to download map data. Considering that I'm already carrying all the texture data, I don't understand why the map engine would require a server to run (or why it couldn't generate the entire world in one go and feed it all to you so each time you start a new game you have to log in).

  60. Re:Rant from a console player of D1 + Diablo-clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A console player complaining that hey dont get a game to play while so many of the games are either not available for pc or badly ported from consoles.
    I have no sympathy.

    Ps i simply cant be bothered to login to coment

  61. Not failure to support, failure to port to new OS by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately as I learned last week when I bought a copy of Diablo II from the Blizzard store, that's not always the case; D2 isn't supported under OSX 10.7 and above. That's not Blizzard's fault, as it was Apple who removed support for PowerPC applications, but it's an exception to your argument.

    As a Mac user I understand your point but I don't quite consider that an exception. Its not that Blizzard failed to support an existing product, its that Blizzard failed to port Diablo II from Mac OS / PowerPC to Mac OS X / Intel. The product did list PowerPC and Mac OS as requirements. The complication is not PowerPC to Intel, it is Mac OS to Mac OS X. Specifically moving from Mac OS's Carbon API to Mac OS X's Cocoa API. It really is porting to a new operating system despite both having "Mac OS" in their names.

  62. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about privacy? I don't want blizzard, steam, or anyone else to know what I'm playing, how I'm playing it, for how long I'm playing it, and who I play with. It's none of their damn business.

  63. Re:Rant from a console player of D1 + Diablo-clone by CronoCloud · · Score: 0

    he N64 version of StarCraft was fucking awful - and I've played it. Controls and horrible and hard to use, the interface was terrible, and the game was laggy as shit.

    Did you have the N64 RAM expansion pack installed, I have heard that helps. What surprises me is that the game wasn't released for the PSone, the N64 has no other RTS, and the PSone has several. The PSone also has the PSone mouse, for more traditional control, and EVERY RTS on the PSone supports it.

    And health orbs? Really? You're claiming that that's from Marvel Ultimate Alliance when games from the bloody 80's had that (on PC no less, not console)?Sounds like the lazy elitist might be you.

    I should have said "health orbs in Diablo clones", yes other games in other genres have had them. But it is rather suspicious that Blizzard puts them in D3, AFTER they've been proven to work well in Marvel Ultimate Alliance, which is Diablo with superheroes.

  64. I really wanted to not complain about the DRM by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    But after not being able to play a single player game for the last two hour because the servers are not working, that is pretty terrible for a launch day.

    No matter how unbalanced things might be at the start, you have to be able to PLAY the game!

    1. Re:I really wanted to not complain about the DRM by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      The implementation sucks.

      The slightest hiccup and it kicks you out of the game with no warning. I wonder how much progress I lost.

      I wouldn't recommend this game to anyone. Which sucks, given how much I was looking forward to it, and how much I loved Diablo III.

      A rare swing-and-a-miss from Blizzard. I'm not even sure I'll pick it up again after my experiences today.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  65. if Blizzard shuts down servers by deesine · · Score: 1

    you mean, like how they're down right now and I can't play the game that I paid $60 bucks for. I buy about one game/year. So far this gaming year sucks. I can understand a release day rush, but if this happens again after this week I'm for sure never ever buying a single player game that depends on remote servers.

    I'm old enough to know better. I feel stupid. I feel ashamed. I need to see my therapist...

    --
    damaged by dogma
  66. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    How about the fact that this particular implementation of DRM is possibly the worst imaginable... being so beyond "inconvenient" that it renders the game completely unplayable.

    A slight network hiccup while playing SINGLE PLAYER, and you're unceremoniously dumped out of the game, losing progress. SERIOUSLY?

    Absolutely unacceptable.

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  67. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    That's not how it works. If their servers go down for any reason, if the connection hiccups at any moment, you're kicked out of your single player game, losing progress.

    Stop trying to defend this shit when it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  68. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

    But I'd willing to bet 95%+ of the posters here have DSL / cable / better and just like to bitch about any and all DRM

    Right, because being annoyed with companies punishing their paying customers to try to screw over people who buy used games just like to whine. You're just a troll and one of these days when you go to play your favorite game and the company says "Sorry, the $60 you spent on that game is flushed down the toilet - we turned off the servers. Go fuck yourself." you'll finally learn why DRM is bad.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  69. Played to act 3 yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got home at 3 am yesterday to begin playing, waiting till about 4:15 before finally able to login and game. I wasn't too upset about the down time as it pretty much expected it. Once in game had absolutely no issues, no lagging, my 3 friends were able to join me, played for 10 hours straight,

    Im not a fan of DRM but any means and have weighed out the positives/negatives of D3 having its own. As a pretty hardcore d2 player I think pro's outweigh the cons. No spammers/hackers, the drm is definitely nessecary for the AH to work properly.

    I really dont get how blown out of proportion this is. For its implementation it makes sense. Blizzard games have made many breakthroughs and standards when it comes to multiplayer (see any WC,SC,Diablo game) so I really don't understand the arguement that these are single player games. Removing offline single player as an option obviously won't be well received by everybody, had this had happened with D2 or SC1 I could understand the outrage. This is 2012, I really don't see this as a huge inconvenience, nor did it sway my decision to purchase by any means.

  70. Re:Hey Blizzard... by dintech · · Score: 1

    a giant DRM'd dildo.

    I wouldn't expect them to even take it out of the box since off-line single player isn't really their thing.

  71. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    As time as gone on DRM has gotten more intrusive and restrictive while only inconveniencing paying customers.

    FTFY. No pirate has ever been inconvenienced by these DRM schemes. Their product is free, better quality, and works all of the time.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  72. Diablo 3 errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed all my diablo 3 errors thanks to this site
    diablo3eguide.com

  73. Since that's illegal, why bother buying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since that's illegal, why bother buying in the first place?

  74. got plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goodbye life, will see you next year

  75. However, I do expect if they demand rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, I do expect if they demand rights, they hold up their responsibilities.

    If they still, 10 years later, want to retain sole right to modify and distribute modifications of the game, whilst STILL keeping the money I paid for the license, they should patch and update the game 10 years later.

    They want to be the only one who CAN.

    Either give me a refund if you no longer wish to uphold your end of the bargain, or cede control of the process.

    After all, you've had 10 years of using my money and I've had 10 years of using your game. Either the money was sufficient for your game or your business model failed, and that's not my problem.

    1. Re:However, I do expect if they demand rights by EdIII · · Score: 1

      That's unreasonable.

      Do you expect a painter, or author, to keep up with small modifications (that you elect are required) 10 years after the sale? That hardly sounds reasonable at all.

      Copyright allows them the sole right to distribute copyrighted material, it does not allow them the sole right to modifications. Once you have something in your possession, and copyrighted material is no different, you can modify to your hearts content.

      What is prohibited is distributing the copyrighted work with said modifications, but nothing prevents you from explaining those modifications or releasing your own patches. The DMCA is often used to unethically block such modifications, but has nothing to do with expecting code updates 10 years later.

      I honestly don't see how you can reasonably expect a developer to spend his/her time 10 years later to make updates simply because you think they are blocking your right to modify.

      In spirit, I do agree that 10 years should be more than enough to profit from a game and that afterwards anybody can do anything with it. Might be difficult without source........

  76. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    I think it this was the first game in the series fewer people would be complaing about it. But as it's the third installment and the previous two were able to be played single player and offline they have created an expectation that this one would be also. With Diablo 2 there were roughly four play mode options:
    True single player, nothing needed but your computer.
    LAN multiplayer, you could create games with friends over the internet or any network, using characters from singleplayer.
    Open Battlenet, same as LAN games but blizzard hosts the game for you.
    Laddered Battlenet, games and characters hosted on blizzards servers.

    My memory is a little fuzzy here and I think there might actually have been another battlenet mode where you had characters and games hosted on battlenet servers.

    Anyways as you can see there was a lot of choices in Diablo 2 simply in how you wanted to play. Many people never played anything but singleplayer. Most of the obvious cheating you are complaining about was on the open game options. Where since the player has access to the save game files of course it's going to happen. But in the closed game options there was a lot less of that, cheating was limited to boting and duping via networking bugs. And the only case where another player cheating in those ways could actually hurt you was where you had opted in, by either joining/creating a public game or pvp'ing on hardcore.

    In diablo 3 they've taken the most heavy handed approach to resolving all of the supposed ills of the previous games. All it'll really do though is slow down the development of bots and dupes, it's not going to stop them, well at least not the bots. In the mean time we get a game with less features than the game preceding it. One of my complaints is that even if the blizzard servers are up 100% of the time my internet connection is not. And justifying the inability of people to play their new game on launch day by saying some other game had a worse problem is not a valid excuse.

  77. If the game doesn't start till nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then they should make you proceed through Normal much, much quicker by upping the levelling speed there.

  78. Having fun by JBallz · · Score: 1

    Moral quandaries aside, I am having a ton of fun in the game. The departure from a set skill tree has really paid off for me, I'm really enjoying tinkering with all the combinations. I got really disappointed with Diablo II due to the lack of viable builds you could make and getting burned for early bad choices. For me, this feels like a much better entry in the series.

  79. Re:Rant from a console player of D1 + Diablo-clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We now know that Diablo III was in development back on '04... but development stopped when the entire dev team quit to form Flagship Studios (which is now also shuttered). They didn't restart development until '08 because they were busy with WoW and Starcraft II. As for console releases... this is an odd complaint. In the last decade, PC gamers have gotten the shaft a lot more than console gamers. We have Blizzard, but you have almost every other game developer in existence. And you may get Diablo III in a couple years anyway. Stop whining.

  80. Diablo III: Returned, Unopened by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

    My wife pre-ordered Diablo III. SC2 was annoying with the log-in requirements, but given everything I had read about the Zero Day issues, I asked her to send it back, unopened.

    I'm not really a fan of game piracy. I keep all my PC games; dating from the mid-90s, I've got 500-700 PC titles tucked away into binders upon binders upon binders. Once upon a time I had the brilliant idea of putting all the activation codes into an excel file so that I could get rid of the boxes and manuals, but I lost that a decade ago - from time to time I've had to visit Megagames or other sites for a crack over the years, but I never felt bad about it because I always owned the game.

    I think this is where I finally draw the line on piracy. When a game is unplayable in single player mode because of DRM, regardless of reason, temporary nature....I think that crosses a line. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow...but one day soon there will be a pirated, DRM free version of Diablo III. If people will build Everquest or WoW servers....if random would-be customers will donate money to an indie developer to recreate Asheron's Call 2 from the ground up years after the game shut down with no hope of Turbine releasing the code for it...then I imagine someone or a team of someones will muster up the energy to give us a version of Diablo III that we can play offline in single player mode.

    Blizzard lost a $60 sale from me. The game is being returned, un-opened today. In the not too distant future, Usenet is going to get $20 from me.

  81. Auction House economy? by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Anything interesting written yet on this?

    I did find:

    http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/05/15/an-introduction-to-the-diablo-3-economy-for-wow-players/

    and was surprised to see the 1 week lockout from launch for the sales.

    I'm still surprised that they haven't run afoul of anti-gambling legislation and am curious as to what is in place to prevent money-laundering, &c.

    That said, I'd still love to see an instance like to that of the short story ``Catacomb'' from _Dragon Magazine_ May 1985. For those who haven't read the story it begins here:

    http://henrysstories.blogspot.com/2011/03/catacomb-part-1-of-5.html

    William

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  82. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by scotjam · · Score: 1
  83. Hm... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    ...My daily Slashdot digest mail said "Diablo III unleashed". Funny.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  84. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by T+Murphy · · Score: 2

    I intend to play Diablo 3 on Blizzard servers with friends, never single player "offline". Therefore, the DRM has no negative impact for me. If you were hoping to play it on your own, offline, sure the DRM means the game isn't for you, but that doesn't make you somehow more intelligent, your preferences are just different. If we were talking about a game that has no online/community gameplay (so far as I know Assassin's Creed meets that description), then I am 100% with you, as in that case the DRM is certainly a problem. I would certainly like to see Blizzard allow offline single player (to accomodate those who want to play that way), but that doesn't bother me as much as people like you telling me I'm an idiot for buying a game for reasons that don't affect me.

  85. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    our rights to own the products we buy

    That's... not a right.

    If you actually believe it is, then I've got a very nice bridge to sell you. You have my personal Anonymous Coward guarantee that you'll own that piece of bridge!

  86. Re:Don't care for lionheart, I'll go with smoke by caffemacchiavelli · · Score: 1

    Hoping for the same regarding depth. After playing D2 for years (Hell, I'm building a summoner right now), I'm a bit afraid of a Godfather 3 scenario. The beta seemed nice, but I'll lay off the game until someone gives me a thumbs up about replayability and all.
    Strangely, I never got into Torchlight at all. I don't think it's a bad game and there's nothing that really bugged me, as was the case a few times with Titan Quest (which I liked and finished a couple times, though), I just can't get myself interested.

  87. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually NO. Theres a hell of lot of people who are mobile. (consultants etc) who spend many a night in hotels, and enjoy playing games. This DRM mechanism means they cannot play a single play game which they even purchased the disk for.
    SC2. a random check every once in a while is fine.
    Constant check isnt.
    Also factor in.. the rest of the world isnt USA, UK or Korea. so in the rest of the real world (like where I am stationed right this minute), there is no guarenteed connection and when it does work, its ridiculasly slow.
    Side note: Grim Dawn and Lineage 3 looks impressive

  88. Why requiring internet connection is a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there's no offline mode, Blizzard is preventing me from playing on a plane, on a train, on a bus, in a car, when I am visiting family, when my internet is down for maintenance or because of outages, I wouldn't be able to play at school if they block gaming ports (in breaks/before/after school), I wouldn't be able to play in general places that doesn't allow online gaming, I wouldn't be able to play where connections are weak or unstable, etc. etc. Thanks alot Blizzard, ontop of the 60 Euro price for Europeans this sucks badly.

  89. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares if someone hacks or cheats in single player if they're only playing single player.

    So how exactly do you take your DSL/Cable/Better with you on a plane, a bus, to school, in a car, visiting, etc. etc.?

  90. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > buy by blindly buying their bullshit

    nice alliteration :-)

  91. Why is it unreasonable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Do you expect a painter, or author, to keep up with small modifications (that you elect are required) 10 years after the sale?"

    Since they don't write buggy books that need updating, since they don't paint pictures that will fall apart or break without updates, and since the actual content is available there in front of your eyes to look at (you know you can read books and learn something called "felicity of style" from how they evoked the intended feelings, right?), I don't.

    But there's nothing there to do either, so is moot.

    "it does not allow them the sole right to modifications."

    That's right. That's why I say that these games MUST be continued to be supported at the game producers expense as long as they insist they hold the sole right to modifications.

    You're no longer even saying it's unreasonable, you're explaining why it's needed!

  92. I always starved or poisoned myself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, nethack wasn't any use to me to play because I'd not get enough food. My character eats every fifteen minutes and food is scarce and you usually have no option but to learn by yourself what dead things you can eat and what dead things you can't, because you have to eat them and the game won't tell you.

    Seriously, I've worked out that eating needs to be tens or even a hundred times less frequent. Otherwise all I find is "You starved to death" or "You died from eating a poisoned jackal". At level 2.

    1. Re:I always starved or poisoned myself. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Nethack was all about the joy of learning what the dev team could throw at you. If "discovering new things" like which corpses to eat gave you trouble, then maybe a deep game like nethack just isn't for you. It's not everyone's cup of tea.

      Also, Nethack can teach important life lessons. Like, you're taking way too damn long on level one. The hunger requirement is a motivational force to keep you going. This isn't WoW where you can kill the same pack of wolves until you hit level cap.

  93. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some around here would compare that argument to that of "I don't care if the Nazis are taking the Jews to deathcamps, I mean it would be nice if they treated them like human beings but I'm not Jewish so why should I care?"

    Note - I am not one of those people.

  94. Re:Summary of comments on DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not a valid excuse.

    I don't mean to Godwin, but it's the only analogy that makes sense.. "First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Communist". Obviously DRM won't lead to a Nazi takeover, but if you don't boycott games like this, who will? Change doesn't happen while you throw your money at them and play the game anyway, safe in the knowledge that it "works for me!".

    I have several friends who bug me constantly to buy this game. If I were to buy it, I would be able to play with them and I'm sure it would be fun. But on principal, I will not buy it. I don't think there are many people who care as much as I do though.

  95. release date? by AshFan · · Score: 0

    When is the REAL release date? I've been trying to log in for days, and still have not conected... must have been moved back... right?

  96. EULA / TOS / Stuff Nobody Reads by Onuma · · Score: 1

    The End User License Agreement clearly states that we have not purchased a copy of the game, but a rather license to use it. While I disagree with their choice of legalese, I'm still having a ton of fun hacking & slashing with my buddies.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  97. What crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blizzard servers and networks suck so bad that the game can take several minutes to 'swing a sword' or 'pick up a gold coin'. Add me to the lawsuits to get my money back!. This after more than a week of being online is unbelievable.

  98. Online single player gaming = SHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for making this hard for us single player users, Blizzard. Pirates will still crack this. I'm not buying this shit, until it is available offline.