Jimquisition: You Should Be Mad at Diablo III's Always Online DRM

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

I've made a decision- if I go to play Diablo 3 single player and I can't, I'm going to call customer service and explain to them how stupid it is that I can't. Gonna use a few points from this. Namely "it's not my problem that you don't know how to handle piracy".

I suggest everyone that owns/loves Diablo 3 does the same.

Crono1973:

I would say that it's the people who bought the game who have the most right to complain. That's just common sense though isn't it, something the game industry is obviously exempt from in your mind? Would you complain about a TV you DIDN'T buy?

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

getoffmycloud:
I knew the servers would fail at launch.

ofcourse you did, everyone did, blizzard warned everyone they would.

bells:

Crono1973:

I would say that it's the people who bought the game who have the most right to complain. That's just common sense though isn't it, something the game industry is obviously exempt from in your mind? Would you complain about a TV you DIDN'T buy?

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

I'm going to assume the main reason those of us who didn't buy the game are mad and have the right to be mad is this:

You know goddamn well that what Blizzard has done with this previously awesome franchise is evil and wrong in every way, but you fucking validated it with your disposable income. They don't have to fix it. They don't have to make it up to you for failing everybody. They probably don't even have to make another game for one more decade. You will all continue pouring your money into their prefect pockets. Other developers will see this and may follow suit. The quality and playability of our games will continue to decline.

I'd tell you to hang your heads in shame, but despite the buyers remorse you know you feel, you'll stubbornly give us a shit eating grin and continue enforcing bad behavior from the people we pay to entertain our brains.

On the Skyrim topic: I know more than a few people who would have done anything to get their hands on it asap so if it had been delayed it would have caused even more controversy. especially among console fanboys, had the ps3 version been delayed while xbox and pc versions were released, the fallout would have been awful. now i know this statement reeks of the eat shit and like it rant Jim gifted us with but id rather enjoy a somewhat laggy Skyrim (I was lucky and had virtually no problems in this regard, my game ran smooth but i'm aware that many suffered) than a late Skyrim. Therein lies the problem, people wait five to ten years for sequels the developer is aware of this and knows it can push the boundaries cos the fans wont even allow complaints to be heard nor will they be able to resist buying it even though they may be aware of severe faults. So until we gamers can restrain ourselves the publishers will never learn.

A friendly hint to all the good boys and girls who bought Diablo III:

Crack it.

"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good"

Spot-fucking-on Jim! I agree completely, DIII's DRM is absolute flying cow shit and at this point I have resigned myself to no longer take place in future of gaming if this is the way games are going to end up. Fuck blizzard, the weak knee'd pussies they are and fuck craptivision who no doubt contributed to this shit-storm of horrid DRM.

Crono1973:

bells:

Crono1973:

I would say that it's the people who bought the game who have the most right to complain. That's just common sense though isn't it, something the game industry is obviously exempt from in your mind? Would you complain about a TV you DIDN'T buy?

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

And yet, buying something KNOWING of a feature and then COMPLAINING about that EXACTLY feature you KNEW was there WAY before you payed UP FRONT for it, is just plain stupid...

Jim, you made a good point and I liked the way you presented it. It would have been a much better idea to have an offline mode and I chuckle every time when I think about Jay Wilson's statement "Online is the best way to play the game, so why wouldn't you want to play online?"*

However, because it was announced months beforehand that they were going to need an internet connection, the consumers should have made a much bigger statement before paying for it.

bells:

Crono1973:

bells:

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

And yet, buying something KNOWING of a feature and then COMPLAINING about that EXACTLY feature you KNEW was there WAY before you payed UP FRONT for it, is just plain stupid...

So, you are 100% satisfied with everything you ever bought?

Jim is completely correct of course. But I don't think it will change Blizzard's position. Sadly enough, it may very well be the financially correct decision for the company, even if it DOES lose them some sales. Because sadly enough, making the servers do all the work (and contain almost all of the single player game) is potentially one of the only possible functional DRM mechanisms. Even though even this may not work 100%, because, of course, look at WoW...

But I will say this. Every time I see shit like this, I feel instantly thankful to CD Projekt. I also made sure to purchase the GOG version, precisely because it didn't have DRM.

The online DRM is always a pain, that much is for sure.

But you knew it was there. If you didn't like it, why did you buy it?

bells:

Crono1973:

bells:

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

And yet, buying something KNOWING of a feature and then COMPLAINING about that EXACTLY feature you KNEW was there WAY before you payed UP FRONT for it, is just plain stupid...

You arent good at this whole consumer thing...

You can know that an item has a downside, but you can decide that the good outweighs the bad and buy the product, that doesn't mean you have to like the bad parts as well.

Tommy Lynch:
On the Skyrim topic: I know more than a few people who would have done anything to get their hands on it asap so if it had been delayed it would have caused even more controversy. especially among console fanboys, had the ps3 version been delayed while xbox and pc versions were released, the fallout would have been awful. now i know this statement reeks of the eat shit and like it rant Jim gifted us with but id rather enjoy a somewhat laggy Skyrim (I was lucky and had virtually no problems in this regard, my game ran smooth but i'm aware that many suffered) than a late Skyrim. Therein lies the problem, people wait five to ten years for sequels the developer is aware of this and knows it can push the boundaries cos the fans wont even allow complaints to be heard nor will they be able to resist buying it even though they may be aware of severe faults. So until we gamers can restrain ourselves the publishers will never learn.

Also removing the always online feature (or not adding it in the first place) from D3 would not have taken any great effort from Blizzard. Skyrim came out 7 months ago and is STILL getting bug fixes.
Not to say that I condone Zenimax giving us a half-broken game at launch, just that the two circumstances were significantly different

I've never understood this 'always online' system they're trying to implement in order to keep from being pirated.

Do they honestly think that their fanbase will be so vindictive to them that they'd pirate this game that they've been waiting several years for? If it's gonna get pirated, it's probably by people that aren't their audience that are simply curious about the whole thing. I'm pretty damn sure that the entire Blizzard community is mature enough to give Blizzard their pay.

This is just ridiculous. Blizzard's just being paranoid due to recent 'piracy issues' that, imo, have been pretty hugely exaggerated in the past few months.

One question: In ten years time, if Blizzard decide to take down the servers for Diablo 3 because they're costing them money and isn't making any, are we going to be able to play it? Is it possible that we will theoretically be able to play Diablo 1&2 for the next 100 years, but not 3, despite buying it fairly?

There needs to be a 'Satisfaction' Guarantee. I work in a grocery store and if the slightest problem occurs with a persons order, they are allowed a refund, regardless of what that problem might be. So long as the item was from OUR store and the customer was KNOWN to have bought it, they can return it, no questions asked.

Video games? Fuck, you pay for it, you never see your money back, unless you trade in a hard copy of a console game. PC gamers? Hell, so far, only Valve has given me money back when i asked for it, and that was for a broken game (Breach) and it was a paltry 10 bucks. If i had wanted to return my preoder of Dead Island (which i tried to do) I would have been scorned and shunned (which i was). It was probably because it was a store bought copy, but still; gamestop didn't give me my money back. Stardock didn't give me my money back.

So, i ask you this: Who the hell is accountable for customer satisfaction?

Cuz from here, it seems like they can push a completely broken product, and still never have to give money back to people who paid for it.

Crono1973:

bells:

Crono1973:

I would say that it's the people who bought the game who have the most right to complain. That's just common sense though isn't it, something the game industry is obviously exempt from in your mind? Would you complain about a TV you DIDN'T buy?

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

Where did they warn about it? It's not on the box, it's not in the trailer, it's not in the TV spot and it's probably not even on that huge ass user agreement that no one reads.

DanHibiki:

Crono1973:

bells:

Not when you complain about something you already knew you were buying. At that point... common sense went out the window already.

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

Where did they warn about it? It's not on the box, it's not in the trailer, it's not in the TV spot and it's probably not even on that huge ass user agreement that no one reads.

It says on the front of the box in really small print "Internet Connection Required".

It should say "You must be connected to the internet at all times to play this game". Internet connection required could mean anything. It could mean to download patches, it could mean that there is online activation and it could mean you need an always on connection. I'll bet they choose to keep it vague for dishonest reasons. Why else wouldn't they be more specific?

SILENTrampancy:
There needs to be a 'Satisfaction' Guarantee. I work in a grocery store and if the slightest problem occurs with a persons order, they are allowed a refund, regardless of what that problem might be. So long as the item was from OUR store and the customer was KNOWN to have bought it, they can return it, no questions asked.

Video games? Fuck, you pay for it, you never see your money back, unless you trade in a hard copy of a console game. PC gamers? Hell, so far, only Valve has given me money back when i asked for it, and that was for a broken game (Breach) and it was a paltry 10 bucks. If i had wanted to return my preoder of Dead Island (which i tried to do) I would have been scorned and shunned (which i was). It was probably because it was a store bought copy, but still; gamestop didn't give me my money back. Stardock didn't give me my money back.

So, i ask you this: Who the hell is accountable for customer satisfaction?

Cuz from here, it seems like they can push a completely broken product, and still never have to give money back to people who paid for it.

They can, the software industry in general is very abusive to customers because they know you have little recourse.

This guy is full of shit, and all the whiney self-entitled children are flat out wrong.

You are not paying for the right to play the game whenever you want. What you are paying for the ability to connect to the blizzard servers. That is it, and that is all it ever will be. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

This is not a situation where the rug was pulled out from under you. From the very beginning they laid out exactly how the game was going to be run. On their severs. They never gave you the impression it would be run locally. They never said their system would be infallible, handle 6 million connections, never have lag, etc. If you have a shit connection, that's your fault.

They designed the game the way they wanted too. You didn't have to purchase it, you don't get to complain about it. You don't like the way it is? Don't buy it. Simple, that is how capitalism works, that is how economics works, that is how quality control works.

That is all there is to it.

The one thing I find truly despicable is that if any other company tried this they'd be raked over the coals and tarred and feathered. They would take a loss or barely break even, maybe if it was bad enough possibly (unlikely though it most likely would be) go under.

Not Blizzard, nope, they get to tell consumers what to do, when to do it, and they get paid to do so. They're going to make a mint off this it doesn't matter, and the implications for the industry will be detrimental. Blizzard might as well be snorting coke in front of a cop, while insulting your mom, and dropping a deuce in the brownie bowl for all the freaking impunity they tout.

stiver:
This guy is full of shit, and all the whiney self-entitled children are flat out wrong.

You are not paying for the right to play the game whenever you want. What you are paying for the ability to connect to the blizzard servers. That is it, and that is all it ever will be. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

This is not a situation where the rug was pulled out from under you. From the very beginning they laid out exactly how the game was going to be run. On their severs. They never gave you the impression it would be run locally. They never said their system would be infallible, handle 6 million connections, never have lag, etc. If you have a shit connection, that's your fault.

They designed the game the way they wanted too. You didn't have to purchase it, you don't get to complain about it. You don't like the way it is? Don't buy it. Simple, that is how capitalism works, that is how economics works, that is how quality control works.

That is all there is to it.

You are all heart, buddy.

Blizzard does not need your protection. The fact that Blizzard explained from the start how the game would work doesn't change or excuse the fact that what they did pull the rug from under many a gamer's feet. Not everyone can afford a connection that can match and work with the one that Blizzard's servers are supporting.

I am not paying to play the game whenever I like ? Umm, funny, that's how the concept of video gaming has been for the past 30 years or so. The ability to connect to Blizz's servers is via Battle.net accounts. If you like your wallet getting bent over, laggish dungeons, RMAH that next to noone asked for to begin with and are happy that Blizzard just made their problems yours, that's fine. Stop considering yourself supperior or harassing people due to their consumer choices cause you are one of the many that decided to cave in and fork over money.

And while on the subject, the DRM wasn't for quality control. Oh no, its' main purpose is to protect the real money auction house. The game has already been copied and anyone with a bolstered connection can play. So yeah, if DRM was indeed to help shield against pirates, it pretty much worked like crap. The game isn't cracked yet but when it will be via a server emulator, all of THIS, will have been for nothing.

And you just happen to know how a person thinks after waiting 10 years for this, am I right ? You sound like a people person. Let's see if you will think the same next time Blizzard decides to perform maintenance during your playtime. Or the time after that. Or the time after that.

Crono1973:

DanHibiki:

Crono1973:

Nope, you can buy something and not like everything about it.

Where did they warn about it? It's not on the box, it's not in the trailer, it's not in the TV spot and it's probably not even on that huge ass user agreement that no one reads.

It says on the front of the box in really small print "Internet Connection Required".

It should say "You must be connected to the internet at all times to play this game". Internet connection required could mean anything. It could mean to download patches, it could mean that there is online activation and it could mean you need an always on connection. I'll bet they choose to keep it vague for dishonest reasons. Why else wouldn't they be more specific?

yeah, I've been flipping over some of the boxes I have at work and it really doesn't make any mention of 'permanent' Internet connection required, unlike say Ubisofts Splinter Cell of Assassins creed 2.

Even the Amazon page doesn't even mention that it needs to connection at all.

That's not shady as all fuck, is it?

I'm not mad about it. I expect bullshit and piss-taking from businesses.

I just didn't buy it. There are always other options, Blizzard, a couple of which are due to release soon, as it happens.

The login problems were damn annoying. Blizzard could do what every new launch might be wise to do.

Servers are expensive. You don't want to spec for peak load or you'll be bleeding money, SIGNIFICANT money, at normal load. To handle peak load, rent server space. It's out there, LOADS of it, and you can afford it. The goodwill and astonishment a successful, non-bogged launch provides alone is worth it, not to mention the money you saved on not speccing for peak load.

But there's complaining and there's complaining. Blizz not providing the service we paid for is completely and totally complain-worthy, but the decision to make the game always-online removes a much larger amount of complexity from the system as a whole than most people realize. On the sadder yet unfortunately still relevant other side of the argument, it hits a lot of money-words for the people who put dollar signs on everything, and having those people nervous makes very bad work environments happen for the creative people.

Tl;dr: I don't mind always-on requirement, but I require that the service be available for me.

I'd like to bring up another point that MAY have been mentioned in the thread already: I fear for the future of this generation of games. I mean, I love blowing the dust off an old console and play one of my good old games that I used to love. Sometimes the nostalgia trip dies horribly, but often I have a grand time. THIS generation of games will in large part not be playable in 10-15 years, because servers the game hits up in order to play will no longer be around. SOME companies might free their games from these restrictions, but many will not. I recently played Duke Nukem 3D again, and it was a fun time to frag a friend for a while. I also remember playing Bad Company 2, I think it was... can you multiplay that at all anymore? If you still can... sooner or later you won't be able to. The game, with whatever good and bad it ever offered, is essentially dead forever. At the very least the upgrade systems and shit will no longer apply, as no server records your progress and gives you new toys. Will this generation's games, at least a fairly large part of them, be lost to the ages?

It is simply astounding how many people are ready to jump to blizzards defense. I guess the taste of guano has special meaning for these people.

"You knew what you were paying for, dont complain" ...yeah thats right, it says right there on D3's box art "This game will not be playble at launch and gameplay in general will be shit because our servers are powered by a handicapped hamster"

Seriously are these guys getting paid by Blizzard or are they just that deep in denial? You pay money, you get what you were descriped having in exchange for your money. Especially since PC gaming these days means you wont get refunds unless the game is completely broken. How is this difficult?

ThunderCavalier:
I've never understood this 'always online' system they're trying to implement in order to keep from being pirated.

Do they honestly think that their fanbase will be so vindictive to them that they'd pirate this game that they've been waiting several years for? If it's gonna get pirated, it's probably by people that aren't their audience that are simply curious about the whole thing. I'm pretty damn sure that the entire Blizzard community is mature enough to give Blizzard their pay.

This is just ridiculous. Blizzard's just being paranoid due to recent 'piracy issues' that, imo, have been pretty hugely exaggerated in the past few months.

The always online thing is mostly to protect their newest source of income, the Real Money Auction House.

Frostbite3789:

TitsMcGee1804:
Snip

You're comparing a game that came out three years ago on a pretty short development time with no budget to one that's been in development for what? Eight years and had All the Money?

Lets wait to see Torchlight 2 before we talk about levels of polish between games. You know, the one that measures up far better to D3.

what the hell does it matter how long its been in development for? If the game lacks polish i dont care if its a AAA publisher with 10 years to make or an indie studio with 2...

stop making excuses for sub standard games!

stiver:

I don't give a shit about Blizzard.

I do however give a shit about people like you and all the other whiney self-entitled jackasses. What's wrong with the game industry? people like YOU.

Classy. You should look up the definition of whining since you like using it so much.

stiver:
The ones who will buy the exact same thing they decide to have a moral uprising over. You don't like the always online DRM? Don't fucking buy the game. You weren't cheated, you made the informed choice to play a game that was always online.

After 2 installmens that had both offline and online gameplay, after so much fandom appeal and wait for D3, people woke up to a game that required them to be online 24/7. Wasn't cheated ? Do a bit of digging to see how many gamers actually have a connection. Not even a good one. Just a connection.

stiver:
If asshole kids like you didn't exist, companies like EA and Activision wouldn't exist, because no one would buy their products. No, you feel like you can just purchase all the games you want anyways, and then spend your time complaining on the internet. No one cares what you think, because you have no conviction. You just buy the game and expect everyone to bend to your wishes. DRM isn't the quality control, self sacrafice is. You didn't have to buy it, but you did. You don't have the right to complain, and only get that right back when you get a refund.

One of the reasons one should complain after buying a title is criticism. If one can't take that, he shouldn't be in the business. That's one you don't get. Solid reasons for which a game doesn't live up to your expectations (some people say the rune system is a bit...meh) or technical difficultes you come across and hinder your game after you buy it, are criticisms if presented correctly.

Since Blizzard commited to a full online game, one should expect that they have nailed down the connections. For every good comment I read, there are 2 that complain about lag. And it makes sense. Especially in Europe.

If my money was spent on something I expected more from but I was led to believe otherwise, it's my goddamn right to complain.

stiver:
And as an aside: You're full of shit too. The RMAH exists specificly because of all the real-money transactions that exited in Diablo II (most of which are scams). The market existed with or without the RMAH, Blizzard just made their own system.

Nobody asked for the RMAH. People's gameplay is getting the shaft cause of something NOBODY asked for in the first place. You think I am the one who is full of shit ? Blizzard decided to lag everybody's game in order to protect their wallets.

P.S. You assume too much. I haven't bought the game. What I have done though is report you.

Classy. You should look up the definition of whining since you like using it so much.

I'm well aware of what it means

After 2 installmens that had both offline and online gameplay, after so much fandom appeal and wait for D3, people woke up to a game that required them to be online 24/7. Wasn't cheated ? Do a bit of digging to see how many gamers actually have a connection. Not even a good one. Just a connection.

World of Warcraft was the exact same way, and they always made that very clear. If you don't like it, don't buy or play it.

One of the reasons one should complain after buying a title is criticism. If one can't take that, he shouldn't be in the business. That's one you don't get. Solid reasons for which a game doesn't live up to your expectations (some people say the rune system is a bit...meh) or technical difficultes you come across and hinder your game after you buy it, are criticisms if presented correctly.

Since Blizzard commited to a full online game, one should expect that they have nailed down the connections. For every good comment I read, there are 2 that complain about lag. And it makes sense. Especially in Europe.

If my money was spent on something I expected more from but I was led to believe otherwise, it's my goddamn right to complain.

Once again, those are YOUR expectations. This isn't the story or late game/hidden mechanics that can be criticzed, this is basic stuff. You don't get to complain because Starcraft is a RTS when you wanted it to be a turn based strategy. You don't get to complain when there aren't skill points, only runes. Just because you thought the game would work one way, counter to how they sold it, doesn't give you any rights. That is how it is, that is how it was designed, and THAT is how they advertised it.

Nobody asked for the RMAH. People's gameplay is getting the shaft cause of something NOBODY asked for in the first place. You think I am the one who is full of shit ? Blizzard decided to lag everybody's game in order to protect their wallets.

That is a straight out lie, and the thousands of websites selling characters, items and gold is proof enough. Just because the market exists, doesn't mean you are allowed to stick your head in the sand. It is going to happen, without the RMAH, and it is in the safest method to just integrate it into battle.net anyways.

P.S. You assume too much. I haven't bought the game.

I assume nothing, I am replying to you, but talking to everyone on the internet.

What I have done though is report you.

Go for it, I used big mean words.

Ah, nerd rage. Deep and abiding nerd rage.

Here's reality: servers going down sucks.

Here's another reality: servers are going to go down sometimes unless you are Google or Microsoft.

Here's a third reality: always being online, and all characters having to be multiplayer characters, is a good thing for the publisher, the game, and the end consumer.

Put these three together, and we see reality: sometimes, making a game better will have some negative side effects that are outweighed by the good.

The truth is that your nerd rage is misplaced. Is it right to whine about the Diablo III servers being down? Sure.

Is it right to whine about having no single player in Diablo III? No.

Why is this so? The answer is very simple: the fact that all characters are automatically multiplayer has large positive consequences. It makes playing multiplayer much easier, and it prevents a lot of computer-side hacking (or at least, greatly complicates it). In many games, you could just have single and multiplayer be basically the same thing, but in Diablo type games, you can't. The reason is that the game is ultimately about farming items and nothing else. People will cheat this system in single player, which is fine, but if you then bring a cheaty single player character into a multiplayer environment everything goes to shit.

People hate cheaters more than they hate everything else, and cheaters ruin game experiences like these. It also ruins the in-game economy and overall makes the game worse.

Likewise, people being unable to play the character they've been working on for so long by themselves with their friends later on down the line is also terrible, and can make people quit playing the game.

Thus, ultimately, you are put in the situation where the optimal solution is the always-on multiplayer of Diablo III. It has the downside of the servers going down means the game is unplayable, but it has the upside of people being able to more easily play the game with their friends. Ultimately, from both the standpoint of Blizzard and the vast majority of consumers, the cost (the servers going down, which will presumably be quite rare) is greatly outweighed by the benefits (less cheating, people always being able to play with their friends).

I have not had issues with lag, either in release week or otherwise. Are you running other things, like steam downloading games, while you're playing? Because frankly, the only time I've even seen a little bit of lag was when I was downloading all the Thief games simultaneously on Steam.

Being angry about bad things is alright, but being angry about good things - good things you are unable to understand - is bad, and makes them think (well, know really) that most people are just incurable nerd ragaholics who are utterly unable to try and think beyond the immediate.

Servers being down sucks, and I agree that it is bad, especially on launch day (which, not coincidentally, is when it is most likely to happen) but the idea that the always online thing is some sort of evil devil out to shove shit down your throat is just an example of why companies cannot take most of their customers seriously - because they don't know the first thing about what they're talking about.

Maybe it would be better to stand back, take a deep breath, and consider WHY they're doing something (and not try to come up with nefarious conspiracies, but why real people would do it - people who are not drooling morons) rather than creating a ranty video or raging online. If, after careful and through consideration, you think that it is still wrong, then yeah, post about it. But it is clear that most of you, including the maker of this video, did not do so.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here