Well, I hope you're not assuming I agree with that. Just because a law exists doesn't mean I agree with it.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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.
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.
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."
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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.
It DOES put things into perspective, especially for people who like to complain about teh evil government in America taking away their rights, when there are governments which REALLY abuse their own people.
"Things could be worse" doesn't translate into "things are good."
And this should serve as a warning for what happens when you allow governments to run rampant.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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.
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.
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.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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?
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.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 5, Funny
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.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
"Not as bad" doesn't translate into "good." In fact, I still see it as bad.
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· 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).
ISP already knows a lot about you, to protect your privacy we have laws.
Yeah. Let's not make it worse. And I'd prefer not to rely on corrupt lawmakers, either, to protect my privacy. They're the same geniuses that came up with the TSA and Patriot Act.
b) Copyright organizations claim it's necessary to pay (some of ) the costs of piracy
Then no wonder some people claim the former. If you're having to pay these organizations when you didn't even pirate anything to begin with, is that any surprise?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I said that it's only a right until it's taken away.
It seems like network owners have the right to shape their traffic
Unless that right is taken away, that is.
And if you're not pirating it, then why do you care at all?
Perhaps because they're ramming draconian laws down our throats on a routine basis? And I don't only care about myself, you know.
Yet another prime example of the challenge and why people should be taught to think.
Yes. If only they could learn how to think from you, the Enlightened One.
Well, I hope you're not assuming I agree with that. Just because a law exists doesn't mean I agree with it.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
It DOES put things into perspective, especially for people who like to complain about teh evil government in America taking away their rights, when there are governments which REALLY abuse their own people.
"Things could be worse" doesn't translate into "things are good."
And this should serve as a warning for what happens when you allow governments to run rampant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Pre-ordered a copy
Fuck Blizzard for requiring always-on DRM
They'll be sorry now!
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.
"Not as bad" doesn't translate into "good." In fact, I still see it as bad.
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).
ISP already knows a lot about you, to protect your privacy we have laws.
Yeah. Let's not make it worse. And I'd prefer not to rely on corrupt lawmakers, either, to protect my privacy. They're the same geniuses that came up with the TSA and Patriot Act.
b) Copyright organizations claim it's necessary to pay (some of ) the costs of piracy
Then no wonder some people claim the former. If you're having to pay these organizations when you didn't even pirate anything to begin with, is that any surprise?
But in this case, they're punishing you for what someone else did.