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 been saying it forever. Even though I probably played d2 on bnet 90% of the time it doesn't matter. Not having the option to play offline single player, or lan multiplayer lost ac/blizz a sale.

Not providing that options is a dick move on the developers part and I'm not going to financially support it.

Their excuse that "well some people are too dumb to read a warning that you can't use offline characters while online" is a load of shit and every should mock the poor schulp who the corp made to spew that line.

Walter Byers:
Creating a new game in D3 is the same as zoning into a dungeon by yourself in WoW. That is not DRM.

Uh, what?
Are you seriously claiming that D3 singleplayer should be compared to WoW, a game largely based around interacting with other players? A game where a large portion of the content is restricted to multiple players only? Because in case of WoW, online only makes sense. That game is shitboring without other people to play with. D3 has a single player component that simply shouldn't require always online.

Oh man, the people trying so very hard to tell us it's not DRM and failing in epic amounts to realize everything on the server could have been on the disc, is making my night. I should be in bed, but I kind of want to stay here for the laughs.

Blizzard said sorry and thank you for your patience.

I dont think thats enough though, it needs to be 'We really fucked up bad and made alot of people deservedly pissed at us and youre all justified, heres a free ingame pet or something'

They wont

I was going to get Diablo 3, but then I wised up and spent my money on something that I could sit back and play whenever my internet goes down. That game in question was the MGS HD collection, 3 games I've never payed before for less money and with less shitty DRM. But really, it drives me insane that if a perfectly playable, actually very good game such as ME3 has a lacklustre ending EVERYONE gets mad. Whereas an otherwise great game has a system that makes it unplayable for a LOT of people, people don't get mad. Why isn't anyone filing complaints, or making petitions? Because us as gamers are too fucking apathetic when it comes to DRM in good games.

Lol, I can't help but look at Blizzard with pitying eyes when they allow it to get to the point where LATENCY is an issue in a SINGLE PLAYER game and they really couldn't give a toss.

Their ambition has clouded their judgment, clearly.

Eric the Orange:
Ah see that is the thing, your assuming this is about anti-piracy measures. And I believe that can be debated. My guess would be that it's to try and make everyone use the real money Auction House. So the end goal is the same, more money, but what they are getting money from is what's different.

It was intended to do both.

You know what else is sh!t publishers think we'll just eat right up?: Games that are broken on release.

You know what game Jim loved and had nothing bad to say about?: Skyrim.

You know where this is going?: Yeah.

Spot on.

I'm just happy with myself - I was smart enough to not buy this game. And I never will. We have new good stuff coming, such as Torchlight 2. Do we need a Titan Quest clone with always online DRM which is Diablo 3?
But yeah, I have to agree with person above about Skyrim. PS3 version was simply broken. And it's still broken. And it was a way more severe stuff than Diablo 3. And way more inexcusable.
Gosh, Fallout 3 and New Vegas GoTY editions are plain broken/not work on PS3 yet they're being sold (I'm not sure if that's true for every country, I've heard those games was banned from sale in some). With all that in mind you just should never buy Bethesda games ever. That is, if you respect yourself. I know many people don't.

If you're paying upwards of $60 dollars for a game that you can't play when you choose to play it and you aren't complaining, you're contributing to the biggest problems that faces the game industry.

Yes. Because then you are the FUCKING IDIOT who bought D3, knowing about the always online requirements and by logical conclusion that on a worldwide launch of one of the most anticipated titles would have serious issued for the first days, and then you DARE to complain.

You are a moron if you thought there won't be any problems.
You are a moron if you bought the game, knowing everything about it and complain afterwards.
Inform yourself, vote with your wallet.

The last three lines are not directed at anyone in particular. Now I watch and see if Jim was smart enough to come to this conclusion or if he rides on the popular opinion again. Oh, surprise. He just repeats the popular opinion *sigh*.

I agree with Jim, though I'm not sure if DRM is the right world. Total waste of time is probably more accurate as I've heard somewhere (though I'm not sure if it's true or not) that the game's already been cracked and is played using a server emulator or some such. There's no excuse for forcing even single players to play the game, especially when they got bored of Diablo 3 and what to force Diablo 4 on us they can just shut down the servers for D3 and leave us with nothing to play unless we get D4.
I think we should start a campaign to demand Blizzard makes some form of offline mode that can't interact with any online functions. Can't be that difficult to do.

I could not agree with you more, Mr. Sterling!

If Blizzard keeps this sort of thing up, they already have the last dollar they're ever going to get from me. That was from SC2. There's no way I'm buying Diablo III. (Hell, Diablo is just a mouse-killing click-fest anyway, as far as I'm concerned.)

getoffmycloud:

templar1138a:
I'm mostly in agreement.

However, some of the "You're Allowed to Be Entitled" argument loses its merit when the players KNEW that being connected - even for single player - was a requirement WELL in advance of the game's release.

A bigger message would have been sent if the people who are complaining now hadn't bought the game in the first place. That's really the root of the "Just eat the shit" argument. They paid for it knowingly. They made their bed, so they have to lie in it.

That's part of why I didn't buy the game at all. Mostly I didn't buy it because I don't care about the Diablo games anymore (wasn't really a big fan to begin with). But if the same DRM were to be put in place for, say, the next Mass Effect or Dragon Age game (both are series I friggin' love to the shut-up-and-take-my-money extent), then I'd boycott those games too. It'd pain me, but I wouldn't want the developers to kick me around, and if enough people boycotted the games, it'd send more of a message to the developer than complaining that you're entitled to not have to put up with a DRM you KNEW about when you bought the game ever will.

Because at the end of the day, they still have YOUR money, which is all they wanted in the first place. Companies pay attention to money flow, not blogs.

As much I as agree this situation is complete bullshit I can't help but agree with this Blizzard pretty much showed us the shit before release and people still went ahead and ate it.

If they hadn't said that being always on is a requirement then this would be a fair enough argument that I would support but I don't even care about Diablo 3 and I knew the servers would fail at launch.

To be fair, not everyone who is complaining about the Always Online policy bought the game. I've seen a few people saying they'd buy D3 if it didn't have the policy get flamed and attacked by others saying pretty much what Sterling said with the whole "Be glad you're eating shit because others have nothing to eat".

Walter Byers:

trollpwner:
O.K., what it has is magic pixie fairy dust. That makes the game unplayable at times. The game you bought. For $60. In the single-player mode that should require no internet connection whatsoever.

Wait, I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Creating a new game in D3 is the same as zoning into a dungeon by yourself in WoW. That is not DRM.

Except of course, Diablo 3 is not an MMO, the ignorance here is in your posts.

1) We aren't connecting to an online server at first. When you log in you are logging directly into Battle.Net 2, which is just a giant glorified lobby you wait around in before you decide like jumping into the actual online part. Hell I hate to even call it a lobby because there isn't even any ability to communicate with others UNLESS you are in a game. In that regard, Diablo 2 was more of an MMO because at least Battle.Net 1.0 allowed for free communication outside of a game.

2) There is ZERO excuse for restricting players to connecting online even if they play single player. Another key difference right there, you can't play WoW as a single-player title can you? Nope! Sure you can play outside of a group, but the fact that other players exist around and interact with you directly or indirectly means its still an MMO. Diablo 1 and 2 never required you to be online just to play without anyone else.

3) This IS DRM. If they wanted to protect their AH economy to ensure the biggest chunk of cash interest came their way, all they had to do was separate the Online Characters from the Offline ones. It's not hard, its been done before trust me, Diablo 2 certainly had no issue with it. Hell, if they were worried about hacks and everything, they could just have a 1-time Online check each time the game is launched before letting you decide whether or not you played offline or online.

The only reason I've seen people support Online-Only outside of the crap thrown around, is that the game we own isn't even the full game. It's online-only because Activision-Blizzard decided to withheld major chunks of necessary code from the release client, only to feed it as a temporary file to the client when you reach the areas its needed. Afterwards it gets tossed out until the next time.

Which well... is complete and utter bullshit itself. That kind of practice is even worse than Capcom and their blatant hard-on for Disk-locked DLC and shenanigans. Of course though, this is "Blizzard" we are talking about right? I mean god forbid that even one step of theirs isn't completely perfect, much less a game.

As an additional note, Ubisoft attempted this exact same kind of shit mate. Guess what? Hackers slammed the Authentication servers needed for the Online only DRM, rendered the games completely unplayable. They've since slowly backed off and away from it.

Personally, I think its the Auction houses fault. The Always-connected DRM measure is to make sure people dont fuck with the Auction house. There are probably other means to prevent such, but they chose this method, and now its biting them us in the ass.

Though, to be honest, Im just going to alame Activision for this...

*Edit*

cursedseishi:
3) This IS DRM. If they wanted to protect their AH economy to ensure the biggest chunk of cash interest came their way, all they had to do was separate the Online Characters from the Offline ones. It's not hard, its been done before trust me, Diablo 2 certainly had no issue with it. Hell, if they were worried about hacks and everything, they could just have a 1-time Online check each time the game is launched before letting you decide whether or not you played offline or online.

Damn, you said it better than I did...

I have a way that Blizzard can fix this. They should just call it Diablo Online. Their new MMORPG. Problem solved.

Personally I hate this always online shit for single player which is why I will never buy Diablo III.

I want to play Diablo 3 myself, but I just don't have the money to afford it, right now. I enjoyed what little bit of the open beta I was "able" to play, but, the open beta did harbinger the potential inconveniences of the always-online requirement. The stories I've been hearing recently of the connection and server issues definitely makes me think twice about buying this game, at the very least waiting a few months for the issues to be hashed out before taking the plunge.

I agree with Jim that, if I pay $60 for a game with the expectation of being able to play it, then I damn well better be able to play it and not be locked out from the game due to bullshit technical issues that could have been avoided by design. However, my response is not to complain or get angry; that is a waste of my time and energies (being older, you get a lot more conservative about how you use those things). My response is to simply not buy the game and move on to something else. If the game companies want my money, they're going to have to stop with the shenanigans and try to have a quality product with quality customer service. I am the customer, and they are supposed to please me, not the other way around. If game companies are not going to try to provide quality products with quality service for the money I pay, then as far as I am concerned, the entire game industry can just go out-of-business; I really don't give two shits. I'll find other things to do, more productive and fulfilling things.

EDIT: Just to waylay any miscommunication with the above, obviously, the game industry is in no danger of actually going out-of-business; however, I would not be surprised to see the big publishers eventually fall to the smaller studios that don't pull all this BS. I expect an asteroid to hit the industry, one day, and wipe out the big, lumbering dinosaurs, leaving the more adaptable, smaller creatures to thrive in the aftermath.

Any way I can get that shit rant on a t-shirt? It sums up my feelings on things quite nicely.

2012 is coming to look like the year companies pushed how far customers could be exploited digitally, and the year customers pushed back. Between finished material being re-sold to us, a game or two asking us to buy/download the real ending, and now this, as much as I'm tired of the negetivity, it's getting harder to write off complaints as entitlement. That is, unless you're so pro capitalist you think a company could litterally shit in the box and customers still have no right to complain and can only vote with their wallet. It's hardly entitlement to expect that Blizzard pop for (or at least lease) some extra servers to meet expected damand, not expect people that shelled out money for a game to wait a month or two for the hype to die out. I have very little respect for anyone that makes the argument that someone has the right to screw you over. When that happens, we capitalism stops being a benidficial system, and starts being that alien face hugger.

TheKasp:

If you're paying upwards of $60 dollars for a game that you can't play when you choose to play it and you aren't complaining, you're contributing to the biggest problems that faces the game industry.

Yes. Because then you are the FUCKING IDIOT who bought D3, knowing about the always online requirements and by logical conclusion that on a worldwide launch of one of the most anticipated titles would have serious issued for the first days, and then you DARE to complain.

You are a moron if you thought there won't be any problems.
You are a moron if you bought the game, knowing everything about it and complain afterwards.
Inform yourself, vote with your wallet.

The last three lines are not directed at anyone in particular. Now I watch and see if Jim was smart enough to come to this conclusion or if he rides on the popular opinion again.

Sorry, but I still think the moral of this story is "publishers shouldn't be allowed to pull shit like this* and get away with it", not "anyone who didn't foresee that Blizzard didn't do their job properly is an idiot". The fact that everyone should have realized that everything even remotely Blizzard related went offline(including WoW and SC2, because VIDEO GAMES) when D3 was launched doesn't redeem Blizzard the slightest.

* the online only-singleplayer, that is. Although not spending the necessary money on servers doesn't really help them.

Meh.
When people started defending the always-online DRM this is exactly what they tried saying wouldn't happen. Call me a bit childish, but I'm actually quite pleased to see these same people have the error of their argument slammed into their faces.
Because something DID go wrong, and there's a good million or so people who still can't play so much as single-player properly in the game they purchased and should have been able to play a week ago.

As always, Jim nails down what most haters cant seem to grasp: Bad servers doesnt make THE GAME BAD! I love the game, and luckily the server problems hasnt affected me in any way, but I still think its shit of blizz not being able (or not caring) about solving the problems bad servers bring with em, and feel sorry for anyone that had to deal with it.

People just cant see the difference... Thank god for jim I guess :D

Totally agree with Jim in this one.
Jim should stop raising valid points, though. I don't like agreeing with him all the time.

Walter Byers:
D3 doesn't have anymore DRM than WoW. Calling it DRM is either dishonest or ignorant on your part.

While that's a factually true statement, and Jim was a little schizophrenic about the point, the main complaint is that the game was literally unplayable for vast numbers of people for an unacceptably large period of time.

Which brings me to my question: let's say Blizzard personally wired everyone's houses with fiberoptic cables and bought all of Amazon's servers so there were zero login issues or lag on their end.

With that scenario in mind, would anyone care about having to be online to play Diablo III?

Gekidami:
You know what else is sh!t publishers think we'll just eat right up?: Games that are broken on release.

You know what game Jim loved and had nothing bad to say about?: Skyrim.

You know where this is going?: Yeah.

No i dont. please continue. im anxious to see where its going. my money is on a strawman argument. but please. fascinate me.

Naeras:

Sorry, but I still think the moral of this story is "publishers shouldn't be allowed to pull shit like this* and get away with it", not "anyone who didn't foresee that Blizzard didn't do their job properly is an idiot". The fact that everyone should have realized that everything even remotely Blizzard related went offline(including WoW and SC2, because VIDEO GAMES) when D3 was launched doesn't redeem Blizzard the slightest.

* the online only-singleplayer, that is. Although not spending the necessary money on servers doesn't really help them.

Ehm, did I try to redeem Blizzard in any way?
(This includes DRM, pricing etc)

The thing is: If people buy the game and complain afterwards about stuff that was well known and discussed MONTHS before release they have no right to complain at all. They already gave money to that slob, they already justified this decision by pouring money into it. Your words, your complaints, everything you do afterwards is meaningless.

Don't buy the game if you don't like the business practicess!

I hoped Jim would turn around and lecture people about being a responsible customer. But since I have yet to see an episode of him that is not repeating of popular opinion I am also not really disappointed.

draythefingerless:

Gekidami:
You know what else is sh!t publishers think we'll just eat right up?: Games that are broken on release.

You know what game Jim loved and had nothing bad to say about?: Skyrim.

You know where this is going?: Yeah.

No i dont. please continue. im anxious to see where its going. my money is on a strawman argument. but please. fascinate me.

Just sayin', Jim isnt immune to a 'chocolate' moustache. Seems he's willing to call out some BS, but ignore others.

This deserved to get called out just as much as (if not even more than) online DMR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o

Yet it got nothing but praise.

templar1138a:
I'm mostly in agreement.

However, some of the "You're Allowed to Be Entitled" argument loses its merit when the players KNEW that being connected - even for single player - was a requirement WELL in advance of the game's release.

A bigger message would have been sent if the people who are complaining now hadn't bought the game in the first place. That's really the root of the "Just eat the shit" argument. They paid for it knowingly. They made their bed, so they have to lie in it.

That's not the issue. Always-on DRM wouldn't have been so bad if Blizzard had kept up their end of the bargain and had the servers to deal with everyone being online. If you buy a game, you should be able to play it, period. If a company doesn't allow you to play the game you bought, and you're trying to play it in the way that the company intended you to, then they are ripping you off.

Now, in a fair world, this would be treated as the inverse of piracy, because you've been sold a product that doesn't do anything. They've taken your money and aren't giving anything in return. If piracy is theft, then so is this. In a fair world, we could level the same exorbitant fines and damages at them as they level at pirates: something like $10,000 per locked out user per day. Unrealistic? Yes, but so are the penalties for piracy.

I want to make it clear that I do not pirate and do not encourage it. I just don't like the double standard on display here where the public can screw the corporation and lose everything, while the corporation can screw the public and get nothing more than harsh words on forums. The playing field is really far from being level here.

If you're going to say that no company could survive those kinds of penalties, that's the point. Those fines are so high because they're a deterrent. All a company need do to not incur those fines is to not screw over its customers like this. It's not hard.

Jim, you should do something about the acoustics. Attach a mic to your shirt or something, bad acoustics give off a bad impression.

Otherwise excellent episode, 100% in favor.

cursedseishi:

getoffmycloud:

templar1138a:
I'm mostly in agreement.

However, some of the "You're Allowed to Be Entitled" argument loses its merit when the players KNEW that being connected - even for single player - was a requirement WELL in advance of the game's release.

A bigger message would have been sent if the people who are complaining now hadn't bought the game in the first place. That's really the root of the "Just eat the shit" argument. They paid for it knowingly. They made their bed, so they have to lie in it.

That's part of why I didn't buy the game at all. Mostly I didn't buy it because I don't care about the Diablo games anymore (wasn't really a big fan to begin with). But if the same DRM were to be put in place for, say, the next Mass Effect or Dragon Age game (both are series I friggin' love to the shut-up-and-take-my-money extent), then I'd boycott those games too. It'd pain me, but I wouldn't want the developers to kick me around, and if enough people boycotted the games, it'd send more of a message to the developer than complaining that you're entitled to not have to put up with a DRM you KNEW about when you bought the game ever will.

Because at the end of the day, they still have YOUR money, which is all they wanted in the first place. Companies pay attention to money flow, not blogs.

As much I as agree this situation is complete bullshit I can't help but agree with this Blizzard pretty much showed us the shit before release and people still went ahead and ate it.

If they hadn't said that being always on is a requirement then this would be a fair enough argument that I would support but I don't even care about Diablo 3 and I knew the servers would fail at launch.

To be fair, not everyone who is complaining about the Always Online policy bought the game. I've seen a few people saying they'd buy D3 if it didn't have the policy get flamed and attacked by others saying pretty much what Sterling said with the whole "Be glad you're eating shit because others have nothing to eat".

Now that I have no problem with that is a much better way of going about it because once you have bought it Blizzard have your money and it's too late instead of not giving them your money because they use DRM you don't like.

TitsMcGee1804:
Blizzard said sorry and thank you for your patience.

I dont think thats enough though, it needs to be 'We really fucked up bad and made alot of people deservedly pissed at us and youre all justified, heres a free ingame pet or something'

They wont

A free in game pet that can take the loot you want to sell back to town for you so can you keep questing.

Not that anything like that exists in a very similar game that's coming out soon at $40 cheaper, without all the restrictions. Nope.

Gekidami:

draythefingerless:

Gekidami:
You know what else is sh!t publishers think we'll just eat right up?: Games that are broken on release.

You know what game Jim loved and had nothing bad to say about?: Skyrim.

You know where this is going?: Yeah.

No i dont. please continue. im anxious to see where its going. my money is on a strawman argument. but please. fascinate me.

Just sayin', Jim isnt immune to a 'chocolate' moustache. Seems he's willing to call out some BS, but ignore others.

This deserved to get called out just as much as (if not even more than) online DMR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaeU3DvW5-o

Yet it got nothing but praise.

Because the game is praisable. and so is diablo 3. But you see, the part where you say this should be called out just as much or more is where i have a problem. Bugs and glitches are not on purpose. The game makers dont want them to exist, they are accidents and actually Skyrim wasnt that bad in terms of bugs n glitches, given how HUGE the game is. The online Diablo was purposeful, it had greedy intentions, and is downright bad decision on part of Blizzard. So no, the bugs n glitches of Skyrim are not as bad as this is. You are exageratting its importance.

However, i do agree that they should be called out, and that people should criticize bethesda to run more thorough testing. But dont compare accidental game breaking bugs to purposeful online DRM wich they KNEW would stop people from playing their game.

TheKasp:

Ehm, did I try to redeem Blizzard in any way?
(This includes DRM, pricing etc)

The thing is: If people buy the game and complain afterwards about stuff that was well known and discussed MONTHS before release they have no right to complain at all. They already gave money to that slob, they already justified this decision by pouring money into it. Your words, your complaints, everything you do afterwards is meaningless.

Don't buy the game if you don't like the business practicess!

I hoped Jim would turn around and lecture people about being a responsible customer. But since I have yet to see an episode of him that is not repeating of popular opinion I am also not really disappointed.

I'm sort of pleased with people complaining, even though they should have seen it coming. If they're complaining now, they can make it clear that Blizzard won't be allowed to pull shit like this in the future. Of course that only works if they're actually not buying the next game(s) Blizzard makes, unless they change their business practice. Which we all know isn't going to happen, as Blizzard could release something they made in three hours by using Game Maker and a bottle of vodka, and it would still outsell everything that year. Geh.

Other than that I actually agree with you. Being a responsible customer is important.

I pay $60 every 4 months of World of Warcraft, according to this logic there needs to be an offline mode so like every Tuesday morning when the servers are down or I lose internet connection that I can play with my friends in off-line mode.

Well...crap. Now I'm glad my laptop's processor is too slow to play this game. I won't have to shell out $60 for a useless DVD-ROM.

Walter Byers:

trollpwner:
O.K., what it has is magic pixie fairy dust. That makes the game unplayable at times. The game you bought. For $60. In the single-player mode that should require no internet connection whatsoever.

Wait, I'm sorry, what was your point again?

Creating a new game in D3 is the same as zoning into a dungeon by yourself in WoW. That is not DRM.

Yeah, that's true. And your point? Jim Sterling just made a 6 minute video explaining why making D3 like a WoW instance is a bad thing. You haven't refuted anything he's said yet.

Playing the torchlight 2 beta means i don't have to be mad about anything right now :P

 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