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

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

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

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. This week, the Jimquisition explains why you should be upset about Diablo III's always online DRM.

Watch Video

OBVIOUSLY, it's a necessary evil to keep that there evil chinamen, pinko commie, evil gold out of our upright just games. Or you're just Entitled.

I will say it's a neat idea to have a "one click join" style multiplayer but still pretty shit to shut down everything about the game because of something out of our control. Surprised you didn't bring up the whole "Well it works fine for me so it's on you're end obviously" response people like to trot out.

Though really, that was just Blizzard making you face down an epic ass boss known simply as Error 37.

I like the trigger finger joke at the end. I've had something similar with Serious Sam. (A game in which the name "Jim Sterling" incidentally shows up in the credits.)

OT: Looking forward to the arguments used to justify why you can't use a game you paid for when you bought it. Should be good.

EDIT: is this relevant?

image

Yes, thank you Jim. I hate people saying that entitlement is a problem in these cases. When you buy a game, you are entitled to play it.

Could swear I've seen this episode somewhere before.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go brush my teeth.

You're right, jim, as always. I don't have to be online to play any of my xbox 360 games. Or any of my PS2 games. Or most of my PC games for that matter. I'm not a diablo fan, so I haven't played any diablo games, nor do I have 3. But if I did, you bet your ass I would be pissed.

I found it kind of unintentionally funny that the ad I saw before this video was one for Diablo 3.

And yes, people should indeed be pissed off about this. Hell, I don't even own the game and I'm pissed off about it because it sets a precedent, if people are willing to put up with the publishers pulling this crap then it means that they're just gonna keep doing it.

And this type of DRM doesn't work. It doesn't stop cheaters and pirates who will circumvent every obstacle put in their path, the only thing it does is screw over the paying consumers who may decide to join the crowd of cheaters and pirates just because they might not have to deal with that stuff.

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.

I kept expecting the Facehugger to play into all that somehow.

trollpwner:
OT: Looking forward to the arguments used to justify why you can't use a game you paid for when you bought it. Should be good.

The "it's an online game, not an offline game because it requires you to be online" argument is quite popular to justify this.
It is also circular logic at its finest.

Soviet Heavy:
I kept expecting the Facehugger to play into all that somehow.

I think the Facehugger is supposed to represent the concept of DRM.

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

Always Online DRM is the only reason I did not buy Diablo 3. And I am proud of my stance before I even watched this.

It's depressing to find myself agreeing with Jim. Not a huge fan of his. But he is right. Peter Gabriel is completely loopy.

OT: It comes the "gamers today are entitled brats" thread avalanche that follows this kind of thing.

And was that real gameplay? Cause it looks more boring than Path to Exile or Torchlight 2... and TL2 is still in beta.

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

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?

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

I think your definition of DRM and the world's definition are different.

DRM: "Short for digital rights management, a system for protecting the copyrights of data circulated via the Internet or other digital media by enabling secure distribution and/or disabling illegal distribution of the data. Typically, a DRM system protects intellectual property by either encrypting the data so that it can only be accessed by authorized users or marking the content with a digital watermark or similar method so that the content can not be freely distributed."

In this case, it works by forcing players to have an always online internet connection to play.

THAT IS DRM.

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.

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

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

Actually it is, here's a quote of what DRM is:

"Typically, a DRM system protects intellectual property by either encrypting the data so that it can only be accessed by authorized users or marking the content with a digital watermark or similar method so that the content can not be freely distributed."

Thank you for spreading your ignorance on this forum.

This is an age where companies have more power than the consumers.

It should be the other way around.

Blizzard created their own problem with the real money auction house and the players are paying for it.

Yo dawgs, I heard Activision Blizzard likes to make money, so they're putting in a policy where they get a percentage of sales from the auction house so they can make money off the auction house while their consumers make money off the auction house.

We all know how fan boys react to criticism of their beloved fixations, how sad it is that this newer generation of gamers are not fan boys of consoles, but instead fan boys of corporations and suits. I imagine them having trading cards of every stock holder in EA. This is the only logical explanation to their illogical behavior. No sane person would defend companies who try to so thoroughly and publicly screw the consumer.

I blame Kevin Butler

He apparently convinced an entire generation that the corporate guys in the gaming offices are all a bunch of wacky fun-loving man-children who are only here to have a good time with you. I cannot believe how thoroughly this worked on the drooling masses.

I'm sort of mixed on whether I should call this plan "DRM" for myself, but I can't deny that some people would see this as DRM. I think the security features are here to protect people's credit card information/identify from malicious users since the auction house system in this game is the biggest feature advertised (so far). However, from what I heard the auction house system isn't even available yet. So...Yeah, right now, I can see this being DRM. Broken, annoying, and pointless DRM.

But even if the auction house system is implemented, this is still Blizzards' problem to protect the identity of their customer base, as Sterling stated here. We expect a great, *secure* service from Blizzard when we put down money for this game, but not something that would restrict us from getting into the game. I haven't played the game myself--lack of money and interest being my only reasons--but everything I hear is that its a good game. I just don't see how its justified to put down any money for a game that has a service plan as restrictive as it is right now.

Maybe in a few weeks (Months? Years?) this problem will be resolved. But for now, this does serve as a good example that even high quality games from highly respected developers could be broken from DRM.

I'm not really a big fan of Diablo and it doesn't really interest me, but I have to admit that I am on the fan's side. There is no reason players who bought the game should have to deal with that crap. I remember the first time I got the first half-life and had to install steam and at the time they did not have an offline mode option. It was very frustrating because my family had crap dial up and so it was difficult to play.

I will also admit that as an "entitled, whiny" Mass Effect fan who raged over the game's ending, the Diablo III fans have more legitimate complaints than I did. I complained about a great, playable game's ending while Diablo fans can literally not play the game they paid for. It certainly makes me feel as though my nerdrage about the ME3 ending was not as big a deal.

I am seriously thinking about getting D3 but I cant be arsed with all this mess personally.

I get enough grief with Steam and its unavaliable server shit without adding this to my list of possible future stroke aggrevators.

Thank god for Jim, and thank god for the erection he just blessed me with. Jim's been knocking them out of the park lately.

I'd like to take a moment to point out another game that came out. Max Payne 3.

When you got it, you put it in the machine, (ok for ps3 you had the shitty install thing but shut up I'm making a point) and once it was loaded, it just worked, you could play it, you could go online, there was no barriers. If anything i praise rockstar.

I bring this up to compare it to D3. and in the end which one would you pick? functionality and quality over quality thats held back by the bad business practices of the industry? i'll go with the one that just plays.

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.

"When we love something, criticizing that which holds it back is the best thing we can do."

I feel the same way about my country.

i saw this coming, that's why i didn't buy this game in the first place. i mean, think about the similarities between this and the Ocean Marketing saga. mass amounts of preorders amounting in broken launch day promises. if you pay for something, you are entitled to complain about not receiving the product and service you paid for. it's theft, plain and simple

You should have just been smart like me and paid 40$ more for the collectors edition so you can look at the artwork, listen to the soundtrack and play diablo 2 while waiting!

Dammit Jim I just love you more and more every week!! I remember how I didn't like you at all in the beginning when I saw you at the Escapist, but damn you have grown on me. When gamers seem so eager to roll over and take any crap their favourite gaming companies give them and even defend them on forums it is nice to have someone that recognizes that it doesn't matter what company you are, there is no excuse for this crap!

Quite frankly I am appaled at the level of hate towards the people whom actually call Blizzard out on this crap. I absolutely LOVED Blizzard, I grew up with Warcraft 1 and 2, Starcraft and Diablo 1 and 2. I played these games for hours upon hours, but that does NOT make Blizzard immune to criticism when they screw us over like this!

1: I do not want to play Diablo online ever! I just dont find playing online with others enjoyable, for those of you that do, GREAT! But please respect that I dont. And yes I did indeed have GREAT fun playing both Diablo 1 and 2 singelplayer only, so why should I not expect the same for Diablo 3?

2: I HATE lagging and will never ever ever put up with lagging in my singel player game!

3: YES I know that I was aware of this always online DRM-crap before the game was released, that is why I didn't buy the game. However, many of you seem to mistake this awareness as a reason not to complain. Just because I knew about it does not mean that I have to like it.

4: And to tell me to just not play the game is kind of contra-intuitive. Being a huge fan of Diablo 1 and 2 I have waited for this game for over 10 years just as you online-lovers have. I want to play it, but not always online, lagging and at the mercy of Blizzard Servers.

I cannot understand why this is so hard to understand for some. I am not saying that Diablo is not a good game, I just dont want to have a game that I just want to play in singelplayer being unplayable at times.

Finally, just some wonderful irony. Blizzard put up a homepage to show if the servers are up or not, but I couldnt get into the homepage. They should put up another homepage that shows if the homepage that shows if the servers are up are up.

I wonder if the console versions of Diablo 3 will be always-online too.
Maybe Diablo 3 is the apocalyptic harbinger of always-online-required console games.

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.

Wait, wait, wait....so, if you want to play single-player, you should put up with all the hassle of online-playing for none of the benefits? Seems legit.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

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

I think your definition of DRM and the world's definition are different.

DRM: "Short for digital rights management, a system for protecting the copyrights of data circulated via the Internet or other digital media by enabling secure distribution and/or disabling illegal distribution of the data. Typically, a DRM system protects intellectual property by either encrypting the data so that it can only be accessed by authorized users or marking the content with a digital watermark or similar method so that the content can not be freely distributed."

In this case, it works by forcing players to have an always online internet connection to play.

THAT IS DRM.

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.

Now don't get me wrong I'm not defending there choice, And I agree with Jim that they shouldn't have done it. But I'd argue that it is not DRM in the technical sense. Which, I admit, is splitting hairs.

Voltano:
I'm sort of mixed on whether I should call this plan "DRM" for myself, but I can't deny that some people would see this as DRM. I think the security features are here to protect people's credit card information/identify from malicious users since the auction house system in this game is the biggest feature advertised (so far). However, from what I heard the auction house system isn't even available yet. So...Yeah, right now, I can see this being DRM. Broken, annoying, and pointless DRM.

But even if the auction house system is implemented, this is still Blizzards' problem to protect the identity of their customer base, as Sterling stated here. We expect a great, *secure* service from Blizzard when we put down money for this game, but not something that would restrict us from getting into the game. I haven't played the game myself--lack of money and interest being my only reasons--but everything I hear is that its a good game. I just don't see how its justified to put down any money for a game that has a service plan as restrictive as it is right now.

Maybe in a few weeks (Months? Years?) this problem will be resolved. But for now, this does serve as a good example that even high quality games from highly respected developers could be broken from DRM.

The RMAH was created to put more money into Blizzards pocket and the DRM is forced on us to protect the RMAH.

 Pages 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