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
 

When... not if, when Blizzard finally pulls its head out of its rectum with a resounding, hot-dog smelling pop and introduces its D3 offline mode, I'll consider buying it.

Each month they fail to do so further solidifies my resolve to not give them money.

You hear that Blizzard? I'm holding my money hostage from you! Accede to my demands!

Here's hoping Torchlight 2 blows D3 out of the water.

This is a complicated issue for me personally, and honestly I feel both sides of the debate are both right and wrong.

First, the "whiners". No, I don't think they're whining, in a general sense, but theres two types of people here, theres people talking trash about the game who haven't even played or bought it, saying its garbage or "just bad" etc, and theres people who have and complain about legitimate issues. The game SHOULD have an offline mode, bottom line. It's not that difficult, you just have "offline" characters, and "online" characters, and cannot transfer them over from one to the next. I personally feel that the game is a SHIT load better online and played in public groups or with friends and feel that the online experience is truly where the game shines the brightest, but to only restrict it to online is pretty shameful of Blizzard. Letting players experience both options and choosing after would bring MORE customers.

You know the only reason they do it is because they want every single purchase of D3 to be a potential auction house user, because overtime that's going to make an extreme amount of money, and every "user" counts. Personally, I disagree with this, and they should give us access to both online and offline, and SHOW us WHY we want to play online through example.

Second, there's the people defending Blizzard. The cheating argument isn't a valid argument if you keep offline characters from logging into the game. That way, cheaters can just cheat by themselves if they must, but don't affect ANYTHING online. Also, think about how many customers they have missed out on by only doing online and its pretty astounding actually.

However, its my opinion that if you are reading this and you're still super bitter about the online only policy of D3, then you're missing out on an incredible experience. My friend lives in Thailand and has a very sub-par connection, but we have very little problems skyping and playing together. Even to play it solo is almost tragic and a very shallow experience compared to any-sized group online. The game is AMAZING, and is AMAZING on STEROIDS when played online. The entire experience was designed around it, which can be seen as a evil thing, but the online experience is a gameplay work of art, in my opinion. That said, the lag still need's to get a bit ironed out right now but is more then playable.

Also, I feel like I should say something about the launch too. I understand it wasn't the smoothest launch ever, but I still have to side with Blizzard PARTIALLY here, because the fact they even got it running at all is a technical achievement in its own right. I mean, were talking about a launch to the biggest selling PC game of all time, and servers were up and running an hour after launch. Of course, not perfect, but you have to consider how many people were all trying to cram into at once. The next day was bad, but again, think about HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET IN, its astounding the servers didn't explode and set all of Irvine on fire. Regardless of how you feel, technical limitations can only go so far. We have to give Blizzard a partial break here, in my opinion. We waited 11 years for this game, I don't think waiting for one extra day is going to kill anybody. Still that doesn't completely excuse them from it, because the people who just wanted to play it single player, w/o lag, should have been able to.

But again, It's still my opinion that I understand why Blizzard chose to have it online only, and for the most part, I agree with them. I don't think that excuses them from any criticism, because I still think there should have been an offline mode, but really, to me, its not the end of the world, considering its an amazing game, and even MORE amazing played online, which is the only way I would ever want to play this game, and really how it was meant to be played.

Should I? Well I'm not, too busy enjoying D3 to give a shit. How about not telling me what I should be mad at.

It is retarded to have to be online when playing a single player game.

You should only need a connection to play with others or to chat with people. But then chat should be separate from single playing.
If you get a DC from the server, you lose chat. Not the last 30mins of your time exploring a dungeon level.

It is not your fault if the server kicks you off. It's not fair losing exploration progress.
PC and router malfunctions are your problem. The server being shit for a single player game should not be.

I rarely take a strong side on internet debates, but anyone who disagrees are fucking idiots.

If you can't see the irony of this, then, stop being what ever you are. L2Brain B4U opinion.

People who refuse to criticise that which they love is what divides fans and fan boys. Its cool if you over look somethings flaws and just enjoy it but denying that they exsist or trying to justify them is dumb, really dumb. I love Naruto but the things as flawed as an octuple amputee Octopus... blah, try saying that 8 times fast.

Diablo's trailers are awesome (no derp, its Blizzard), the monsters look badass and I havn't played a old school over head Fantasy RPG in like... ever! Might give it a go if this gets sorted, wanna bust up some demons as a monk, WOOPAH!

So diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
You want to know another game that isn't single player? Dark Souls.
Both games have constant online aspects. If you play Dark Souls, you are constantly reminded of this by messages, ghosts, phantoms, vagrants, bells ringing, and fires kindling.
In Diablo 3 you are constantly reminded of this by...uh...hmmm. Well...uh...wait. Hmmm. I guess the auction house and up to three more players in your world.
In Dark Souls, if your connection is bad, or you are a coward, you can always start in offline mode, and stay there. You don't get any of the cool online stuff, but you can still play the game.
In Diablo 3 if your connection is bad...you can stare at the box cover art and wish you could rain fire down on Blizzard's head.
2 games. Both have consistant online features. Only one of them has online features that actually make the game cooler. The other is a money-grabbing shelf-sitter.

I am a huge fan of Diablo II.

And I will not buy a game that forces me to be online all of the time, and doesn't even offer a LAN mode.

That's exactly why I played Diablo II to begin with: The ability to play alone OR with friends. Battle.net was just a plus.

Edit: This hits it pretty damn hard on the head:

Aglynugga:
So diablo 3 isn't a single player game.
You want to know another game that isn't single player? Dark Souls.
Both games have constant online aspects. If you play Dark Souls, you are constantly reminded of this by messages, ghosts, phantoms, vagrants, bells ringing, and fires kindling.
In Diablo 3 you are constantly reminded of this by...uh...hmmm. Well...uh...wait. Hmmm. I guess the auction house and up to three more players in your world.
In Dark Souls, if your connection is bad, or you are a coward, you can always start in offline mode, and stay there. You don't get any of the cool online stuff, but you can still play the game.
In Diablo 3 if your connection is bad...you can stare at the box cover art and wish you could rain fire down on Blizzard's head.
2 games. Both have consistant online features. Only one of them has online features that actually make the game cooler. The other is a money-grabbing shelf-sitter.

Just posting to say that I agree on every level, with all arguments presented in the video.

Nothing else needs to be said.

The gay porn and poo made this one of your best episodes to date. Thoroughly appitizing. I was thinking you could make a spin-off series based on these two subjects. Perhaps wear a mankini. Would you like that?

YES! Thank FUCK someone finally said, and so eloquently. Thank FUCK there's discussion and criticism about it. And thank GOD for jim sterling. Maybe he IS a god. Anyone ever thought of that?

I see so many times the infantile justifications on the SWTOR forums, fanboys that bash anyone that doesn't fucking praise the game. "LOLOL gobak 2 WOW!!1" they will say, with their grimy little fingers pounding away at the keyboard. YES, Diablo 3 has some experimental stuff in it. YES, it was bound to have lots of problems. Not a surprise at all that it did have problems really. Should they then be immune to criticism? Fuck no. If the release was shit, people should say "It had a shitty release," by no means does that mean the entire game is shit, it means that the release was shit.

I did not buy the game because of the always online DRM.

And I must admit that I do not feel as much sympathy as I should for my fellow gamers who bought the game for a lot of money and could not play it.

Can't people go back to moaning about Mass Effect 3?

Good stuff as usual, Jim.
It's a particular pain for us in the Pacific who have to deal with both the increased load on the US servers and the inherent latency of living so far away. getting a ping below 200 is like a dream for me. I'm stuck with 300-800, and endless hit delays, sync errors and rubber-banding. This should not be happening in a single player game.

There's already a ton of replies, but I also think that anyone complaining about the "always online" feature deserves to have the game not work. You knew this was coming ages ago, and yet you bought it anyway. I refuse to buy anything that requires a constant net connection to even enjoy my single player mode.

Good video again. I'm through with people defending ridiculous, and obviously bad practices because their own psychological short comings. It's okay to complain some times people, stop worrying whether someone will call you a whiner or whatever and make your fucking voice heard. Or... use your wallet, that tends to work better with corporations.

Guess what? I'm not angry at all! Ha ha, na na na poo poo!

I really am mature, aren't' I?

I gave this a standing ovation when it ended, but now everyone is just staring at me blankly. I really hope by some miracle Blizzard changes this because I won't buy it unless they do, and I really do want to play it.

CardinalPiggles:
Can't people go back to moaning about Mass Effect 3?

Why should they? Mass Effect 3 does not have the shitty always-online requirement for it's SINGLE-PLAYER game! The only thing the internet is used for is to connect to all the other forms of ME3 (iOS and so on) in the COMPLETELY OPTIONAL "Galaxy at War" status meter which is not required to get to the shitty ending so many people have rightfully been making a fuss about!

On the other hand, Diablo III requires you to be constantly online for the game to work, if you go offline you are booted out of the game ENTIRELY! ME3's ending may be the devil but the Diablo III DRM is "worse than the devil if he was a pedophile". (Guess the referance!)

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.

But WoW is an MMO. Arguably THE MMO. Diablo 3 is not. It's got an online multiplayer component in it, I will freely give you. But to say that zoning into a dungeon in WoW is the same as starting a new game in Diablo is silly because it overlooks the fundamental differences between the two games. If I want to play Diablo 3 single player(as I did with Diablo II) then I damned well better be able to do that any time I want because I shouldn't have to worry about server issues. The last thing I want to do is connect to a game ready for a 3 hour grind only to be kicked because the server shut down for some reason.

In short: WoW=MMO= Massive Multiplayer ONLINE
Diablo 3: Single player experience that you have to be online for no really good reason(that I have found anyway)

Walter Byers:

QUINTIX:
So it's not necessarily singleplayer, but I do not think saying "it isn't an MMO either" goes far enough. Whatever happened to LAN parties? Must all multiplayer be exclusively over the internet? Even if your playmate is not even ten yards away?

D3 is an online multiplayer game. It's not an offline single player game. It's not a massively multiplayer game.

Personally I miss offline multiplayer games. RIP couch coop.

Diablo 3 is a singleplayer game with a multiplayer option. Just like Diablo 1 and 2. We done now? You keep posting your nonsense argument and no matter how many times you post it, it will never become the truth.

Fearzone:
Between this and the Dragon's Dogma review, you made my morning.

Thanks for the heads up on Dragon's Dogma.

OT: Couldn't agree more with you, Jim. Sometimes I feel like you're the only games journalist who still tries to be fair to us peasants.

I complained, they deleted my thread on their forums

The Human Torch:

Walter Byers:

QUINTIX:
So it's not necessarily singleplayer, but I do not think saying "it isn't an MMO either" goes far enough. Whatever happened to LAN parties? Must all multiplayer be exclusively over the internet? Even if your playmate is not even ten yards away?

D3 is an online multiplayer game. It's not an offline single player game. It's not a massively multiplayer game.

Personally I miss offline multiplayer games. RIP couch coop.

Diablo 3 is a singleplayer game with a multiplayer option. Just like Diablo 1 and 2. We done now? You keep posting your nonsense argument and no matter how many times you post it, it will never become the truth.

Have you even played the game?

Every time you start a quest (click that big red button on the character select screen that says resume game) you are starting a multiplayer game. You can chose to open up the game to the public, to invite specific friends or play alone. This works exactly like the multiplayer mode in Diablo 1 and 2.

You do not have the option to choose a single player mode like you did in Diable 1 and 2. Show me where I can create a character that cannot, under no circumstances, be merged with the multiplayer mode.

It's good to see that someone knows what "entitled" means. There's a lot of gamers that need to realize that buying a game does actually entitle you to something...a game you can play for one.

And Peter Gabriel is a lunatic, but that's why we love him.


And they say Lady Gaga is original.

I did everything I could about the problem by refusing to purchase Diablo 3.

Arguing with other people on the internet on whether or not they should not have or should not buy the game is ultimately pointless. Fact. Another fun fact is you just can't protect people from themselves.

I had to give away another hobby of mine, Warhammer 40K because the company making the game, Games Workshop, hikes prices on a yearly basis and in doing so drives more people out of that hobby while putting a greater financial burden on the players that remain. Stupid people will do stupid things with their money and the more disposable income they have available the stupider those decisions tend to become.

What should be making people angry I think is that assuming gaming industry doesn't collapse under the weight of it's own hubris like it did back in the eighties, people who start playing games now will play games with the expectation that online DRM comes as standard regardless of whether the game has a significant online portion or not. We should really know better, because we know how things should be but those that come after us will suffer the consequences of our utter lack of a backbone.

It runs awful on mac :(

Chimp's Vaginal Cyst. Fucking epic.

Thanks Jim, made my week.

God bless you, Jim. And people here complain about you taking Extra Credit's place!

I have some sympathy for the seventeen people who didn't realize what an MMO-style launch does to login servers when a game is extremely popular and what an online only experience they'd be getting. The rest of you are getting what you deserve.

Complaining isn't going to do jack compared to what you could have done by not purchasing or playing their product. There's a reason I'm not attaching a Diablo 3 guest pass to my b.net account, nor would I add the full game if it were given to me. Large companies do not pay heed to idle threats of 'I will never purchase your product again.' Fewer still that run an MMO; there is no more resounding a chorus of empty threats than that which accompanies every crash, restart, patch and maintenance period. Fifty seven billion people have resolved never to play Everquest again, I shudder to think how many have made the same claim about WoW. Conviction is a necessity if you care.

I am happy I watched this. I was on the edge about buying Diablo III and now I have a great way of deciding whether I should or not. I will not buy Diablo III until the always online component is taken out by Blizzard. If that never happens, I will never buy the game, as soon as it does Blizzard can count on a purchase from me. I will also contact Blizzard saying this in hopes that many others will and Blizzard will listen.

Walter Byers:

The Human Torch:

Walter Byers:

D3 is an online multiplayer game. It's not an offline single player game. It's not a massively multiplayer game.

Personally I miss offline multiplayer games. RIP couch coop.

Diablo 3 is a singleplayer game with a multiplayer option. Just like Diablo 1 and 2. We done now? You keep posting your nonsense argument and no matter how many times you post it, it will never become the truth.

Have you even played the game?

Every time you start a quest (click that big red button on the character select screen that says resume game) you are starting a multiplayer game. You can chose to open up the game to the public, to invite specific friends or play alone. This works exactly like the multiplayer mode in Diablo 1 and 2.

You do not have the option to choose a single player mode like you did in Diable 1 and 2. Show me where I can create a character that cannot, under no circumstances, be merged with the multiplayer mode.

I think that's his point. He is saying that if you want a single player experience(I know I do) it HAS to be online. Which is the problem. If you only want to play by yourself, you shouldn't need the internet connection. And you HAVE to be online regardless of if you want to be or not, which is unlike Diablo II. There it was a choice to be online and be subject to lag and servers going down. You could just click and go, and totally ignore battlenet. Not so much in Diablo 3 which irks me to no end.

The problem is not multiplayer exists, so much as single player in a true sense, does not exist because you can't play without being logged into battlenet.

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.

At least I can play skyrim or new vegas anytime i want even with some crahses that can be fixed thanks to the modding community. Diablo III had some of my hopes up and slaughtered them down with the messy release on the servers, hacking into people's accounts to loot others gold/weapons.

Spoiled entitled brats... (not this community, but the masses)

I love realize that you may be inconvenienced for a few hours...

I love realize that you are not poor, and can afford one days worth of work, or maybe $2 a day, for a month, isn't making your children starve...

I love realize that you want to curse out the big companies that make great games...

But seriously.... grow the fuck up!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!1111!!!1!!!1111!!!!1

You are only buying the service, not buying the game. Service is second to your fucking tears.

You are entitled to bitch and complain. But since the world is full of pirate asshats... you have to deal with it.

You only have yourselves to blame 'PC community'. Don't pretend it isn't your fault Jim Sterling hacktavist types.

Reap what you sow damn it.

*feels great about your plight

Maybe when these things kiss your ass, you may like them more... you spoiled entitled brats people of the gamer community...

Remember when you judged a game for it being a game? People born in the 80's and 90's have failed us in that regard. It's all about 'you' now, isn't it?

lol

Gaming wouldn't exist, if it was like this back in the day.

*double face palm sigh

There really isn't much to add to what Jim said. Gating single player behind a login screen is inexcusable, end of discussion. I don't give a toss that my computer spends 99% of its time connected to the internet, the act itself is utterly superfluous, and as we have seen, it can render the game completely unplayable. I don't mind additional bells and whistles that require a connection, but the core single player experience should be playable anywhere, anytime without the player having to ask themself "Shit, will I be able to log in?" That's not entitlement, that's how video games have worked for the majority of their fucking existence, and any move away from that is a step backwards. Jim summed it up beautifully - if you let developers/publishers shit in your mouth, they will keep shitting in your mouth. Businesses will always do what they think/know they can get away with, and they will continue to push the envelope in this regard. If you let publishers get away with bullshit like always-online single player, guess what they'll keep doing?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to unplug my router and play some Diablo 2, because I can.

EDIT: It has just occurred to me that if Battle.net were to suffer a PSN-style meltdown then maybe, just maybe some of the misguided Blizzard apologists will finally begin to understand what Jim is on about.

You know, the thought occurs to me.

You have to be a decently smart person to program a game. You have to be business saavy enough to get backing, coordinate the teams, put the product together and ship it. You have to understand your audience to know exactly what they want in order to give it to them.

To plan all of that out and not understand that there will be at least 80% of your audience who will hate your decision is nigh impossible. Especially since the same amount of people complain about the very subject a number of times.

So why do it? Maybe those odd comments on the rise about being a hacker or a cracking the game is the desired response.

Think about it. Game disturbers now have an iron grip on their product. How many sign ins do you have to play your games? And yes, PSN and Xbox live counts. Are there many games that you play that doesn't involve any type of sign in? They are collecting your data and this and that, all the stuff we heard before to better market to you.. and hey, sometimes to sell your info. But that was discovered and instead of fessing up that it's great business sense to have people limited to the amount of product you wish to give them... they redirected.

They have reasons to do this because they were stolen from. Pirates. They needed more control because of Pirates. Pirates will destroy the gaming world, even if Steam puts up revenue in the billions. That's not enough. Could be more. Pirates... All PC users are pirates, remember? They make us jump through hoops, and now I'm starting to feel the hope is that they do create more pirates so they can say things like this:

'Hey, you. Consumer who paid for our product. do you know other people didn't? We know you paid for our product because of x, y, and z... but you might not in the future. Sounds weird? Well, I need to be sure that you never do what you haven't done before. I need you to sign oaths promising me you won't do this. You'll also have to let us search your computer to make sure you never do it. And you'll have to sign in to us every time to make sure you're not these guys... Even though if you bought it once, you probably wouldn't delete it to install a free one. And even if you did, it wouldn't really effect us because hey, you already gave us money.'

We've seen it before. Bush government was found to wire tap. All of a sudden, we were burdened with plots and threats and terror alert fluctuations... people started to get mad at others questioning what the government was doing to keep us safe. So what if your and my rights are being tampered with. There were attacks. There are people who hate us. Let them into your life so I know you're not a terrorist and I don't have to worry about the attacks.

That's what I equate people who excuse and fight for the game publishers. These are the people who screamed down those who were rightfully appalled that the government has been keeping tabs on you for reasons that were never clear. they willingly give up their civil rights because they were afraid, or have 'nothing to hide'. Yeah, that's right. there's nothing to hide. They were never near any of these acts or events...

Ok, so why are they turning the light to you in the first place? Did Government just see a great oppurtunity to gather info and then have a get out of jail free card? Possibly. Are pirate the Game publishers get out of jail free card? Absolutely.

 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