Best Diablo 3 Announcement reaction gifs ever...

[Turambar]

People are mad excited about Diablo 3.  We have been waiting for over a decade for the game, so it is definitely time.  I browse reddit every day, and as much as I enjoy the images, stories, ama's, and other things that are linked, I love the comments more than anything.  Today's Diablo 3 announcement comments did not disappoint.  If you browse the comments, you will find a ton of gifs that show great joy.  I think you will enjoy, so browse away: 

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/qxpro/diablo_iii_launching_may_15/

Here is a compilation of some of them for the lazy:  http://imgur.com/a/cu5AR 

Diablo 3 is almost here! 

[fallacy]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference in Diablo then a game like Guantlets? It looks like nothing more than a brain dead hack and slash game. I have never under stood why people like Diablo even  the first one when it was brand new.

Was dieing even possible in Diablo 1 and 2?

[Yenome]

maybe i should update my beta for diablo 3. wonder if they have added anything new

[Louis Tully]

.

[elkameleon]

Hilarious, I loved the avatar one!

[kahlid74]

I don't worship the Diablo series as a game but I do greatly enjoy it and I'm happy it's\ now on it's way.

[Turambar]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference in Diablo then a game like Guantlets? It looks like nothing more than a brain dead hack and slash game. I have never under stood why people like Diablo even  the first one when it was brand new.

Was dieing even possible in Diablo 1 and 2?

Diablo 3's difficulty really scales with the level of difficulty settings.  You have normal, nightmare, hell, and inferno difficulties.  

This video from the developers sums it up well:

[SavannahLion]

Can someone please explain to me what the difference in Diablo then a game like Guantlets? It looks like nothing more than a brain dead hack and slash game. I have never under stood why people like Diablo even  the first one when it was brand new.

Was dieing even possible in Diablo 1 and 2?

I guess you could say is some ways it's similar to Gauntlet. It's much more enjoyable though imo. You level your character, get weapons, gear, magic, etc... You learn new spells/techniques through talent trees as you level up. It's a dungeon crawler, man. You kinda dig it or don't. I always looked at the Diablo games as a serious game that doesn't have to be taken seriously. If you've got 30 minutes or 3 hours, it's still fun. I still play Diablo 2 a few times a year, even though it's old as hell. I've actually been hooked on Torchlight lately. It's very similar to the Diablo games. It's been sort of a place holder for fans while D3 was cooking. I'm not digging D3 needing a constant internet connection, even for single player games. I think I'll just wait for Torchlight 2.

It's not difficult to die in Diablo. Just venture into an area that's beyond your level or have a crappy belt that doesn't hold enough potions and you'll get dead real fast. Then you've got to go back to your corpse and get your stuff, which can be a pita at times.

As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?)  being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.

[kahlid74]

As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?)  being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.

I respect your thoughts on this and I've felt that way in the past, but in today's day and age I personally feel this argument just doesn't hold weight anymore. 

I think it was SC2 where I got super pissed about this so I decided to do an analysis of my internet connection.  I found out I only went down once in the past two years and it was my fault.  At that point I just let it die personally and wasn't anxious or worried.  In the end, it was all good.

[SavannahLion]

As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?)  being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.

I respect your thoughts on this and I've felt that way in the past, but in today's day and age I personally feel this argument just doesn't hold weight anymore. 

I think it was SC2 where I got super pissed about this so I decided to do an analysis of my internet connection.  I found out I only went down once in the past two years and it was my fault.  At that point I just let it die personally and wasn't anxious or worried.  In the end, it was all good.

Please understand that I'm not this way because I think those without internet access should have access to said game. That's not my point. It has more to do with an unnecessary requirement or a contrived requirement that's just tacked on for whatever purpose the developer comes up with.

To put it another way, Imagine if Microsoft decided that every single 360 requires a Kinect in order to function even if the Kinect's functionality is never used? Mind you, Kinect wasn't a pack-in so  you gotta shell out for it. Owning the Kinect wouldn't be the problem, it would be the requirement that you must have it even if the games you play have no justifiable reason to require it.

It's the same here. There's no true justifiable reason to require an always on connection for Single Player campaign outside of the developers self interests.

[Turambar]

I won't publicly say how much /played I had on WoW, but it was substantial... picture 5 years of raiding 4-5 nights a week for 4 hours at a time... you get the picture.  I stopped playing in 2010 and haven't picked it back up...

That being said, one thing blizzard does better than any other is their game patching system.  Even if you play single player only, the content delivery alone is worth the internet connection.  Let's be completely honest, though.  The internet connection requirement is a form of DRM.  It is the same form that steam uses.  Both feel unobtrusive to me.  You can do "off-line" mode on many steam games, but what does that matter?  Once again... constant patching and support and the ability to communicate with friends even when I'm not playing the same game as them are all a plus.

tl;dr

Blizzard does games right. Being connected to their servers, even for single player, means up-to-date patching and content.

[kahlid74]

Please understand that I'm not this way because I think those without internet access should have access to said game. That's not my point. It has more to do with an unnecessary requirement or a contrived requirement that's just tacked on for whatever purpose the developer comes up with.

To put it another way, Imagine if Microsoft decided that every single 360 requires a Kinect in order to function even if the Kinect's functionality is never used? Mind you, Kinect wasn't a pack-in so  you gotta shell out for it. Owning the Kinect wouldn't be the problem, it would be the requirement that you must have it even if the games you play have no justifiable reason to require it.

It's the same here. There's no true justifiable reason to require an always on connection for Single Player campaign outside of the developers self interests.

Copy that, but there is a reason to require access, it's the Auction house.  They chose to have a system where in game items can be sold for money in the real world.  By doing this, they must require every game to be online all the time to crunch the numbers.  If they let you go offline, they wouldn't see you run a program to get items without fighting for them.  Then you could simply reconnect and sell them for real money.

If there wasn't an auction house I would agree with you, since hacking is hacking, but when it comes to real world money, you gotta be online 24x7 to make sure what dropped was supposed to drop.

[Haze]

As much as I love the Diablo series (anyone remember having to run Bobafett just to keep the cheaters at bay?)  being required to always have an Internet connection, especially for single player campaigns may be the dealbreaker for me. It's along the same vein when Sony devs would use MagicGate to prevent people from copying or moving their single player game saves for a game that has zero multiplayer capabilities.

I respect your thoughts on this and I've felt that way in the past, but in today's day and age I personally feel this argument just doesn't hold weight anymore. 

I think it was SC2 where I got super pissed about this so I decided to do an analysis of my internet connection.  I found out I only went down once in the past two years and it was my fault.  At that point I just let it die personally and wasn't anxious or worried.  In the end, it was all good.

It's a dealbreaker when it comes to buying the game for me.  Online checks / online requirements for offline games be it during install or at runtime = no sale.  Simple as that.  Doesn't mean I'll pirate the game either, I simply won't buy it, won't play it, and consider it to not exist.  I do have to wonder just how many customers like me they've lost through these tactics.

[Samstag]

Add me to the list of non-buyers.  I stopped buying Ubisoft games for the same reason.

I don't always have an internet connection available when I'm sent off on business trips for weeks or months at a time.

[Vigo]

Be kinda nice if you assclowns stopped arguing about crap like which Chinese joystick is the best for Robotron and spent more time letting us know that things like Torchlight exist. 

There goes my weekend.....

 

cough..cough..

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=110848.0

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=97861.0

Now if you excuse me, I have more pointless arguing to do. 

[Ginsu Victim]

Not a fan of Diablo or Diablo-esque dungeon crawlers. However, I'm happy for the fans of the series that are finally getting the game they've been waiting for for WAY too long.

I'm still waiting for Shenmue III....

[Drnick]

I don't care which, give me shenmue III (Which I know is never going to happen  ) or give me Diablo III I would happily waste many hours of my life playing either, either, or.

I am not happy about the online permanantly requirement.  It's not that my Internet connection fails often, but it is often being fully utilised for other things. I am sure that it could be solved very easily.  Set it so that Nothing that you have collected in the game whilst offline can be traded. You can only use it personally or throw it away (Which would delete item, not drop on ground or anything). Its either that or you have 2 different versions of the game, online and offline.  And the stuff you have is not tradable between them, this way you could continue the story (What little story there will be  ) but not affect the planned trading.

Peoples internet connections are going to go down from time to time, does it instantly kick you out of the game when you lose connection,  if so that could be a real pita.

[kahlid74]

Be kinda nice if you assclowns stopped arguing about crap like which Chinese joystick is the best for Robotron and spent more time letting us know that things like Torchlight exist. 

There goes my weekend.....

 

Torchlight 2 is coming soon with Multiplayer to boot!

I think there's a lot of people that feel the same as several of you about requiring an online connection making the game a no purchase for you, but clearly there are more people who just don't care since the big publishers are now all moving this way.

[Vigo]

I'm still waiting for Shenmue III....

I really tried to get into Shenmue. I tried both 1 and 2, Got sick of having to go around and ask every person i meet if they knew anything of the 4 Wude or if they have seen a black car. After days of asking the cityfolk pointless questions with maybe two cut-scenes for my hours of effort, I gave up trying and just ended up playing lucky hit, then running a lucky hit stand so I could afford to play more lucky hit. If I was lucky, by the end of the day I could afford a couple toys from the vending machine. 

I remember reading that it was intended to be like a 7 part game series....I hope he finds that stupid black car by then.

[Ginsu Victim]

I drove an hour to pick up the first Shenmue on release day. Played and finished it ASAP.

I then drove another hour to buy the imported PAL version of part II. Played and finished it ASAP, as well.

I absolutely loved that world, flaws and all.

[knave]

You guys should try Terraria, Looks simple yet highly addicting.

I have more hours playing Terraria in three weeks than any other game on steam... Mmmm Platforming, crafting goodness.

[Mikezilla]

I won't publicly say how much /played I had on WoW, but it was substantial... picture 5 years of raiding 4-5 nights a week for 4 hours at a time... you get the picture.  I stopped playing in 2010 and haven't picked it back up...

That being said, one thing blizzard does better than any other is their game patching system.  Even if you play single player only, the content delivery alone is worth the internet connection.  Let's be completely honest, though.  The internet connection requirement is a form of DRM.  It is the same form that steam uses.  Both feel unobtrusive to me.  You can do "off-line" mode on many steam games, but what does that matter?  Once again... constant patching and support and the ability to communicate with friends even when I'm not playing the same game as them are all a plus.

tl;dr

Blizzard does games right. Being connected to their servers, even for single player, means up-to-date patching and content.

Haha I still play WoW, just started a new character the other day. PRobably going to quit when the new expansion comes out, I think the whole panda aspect is too chinese/retarded.  Yeah, I dont mind it having to have a permanant internet connection to play. I love the diablo series, the story is awesome, thats whats so great about Blizzard games. They are so immersive its insane. I dont think I have ever played a Blizzard game and been like "man that was mediocre at best". The patching support is great, turmbar nailed it. I dont get why people get so uppity about having to have an internet connection to play. This day and age, who doesnt have reliable internet? Im super stoked about this. May 15th couldnt get here any sooner. 

Never even heard of Shenmue. 

[kahlid74]

I won't publicly say how much /played I had on WoW, but it was substantial... picture 5 years of raiding 4-5 nights a week for 4 hours at a time... you get the picture.  I stopped playing in 2010 and haven't picked it back up...

That being said, one thing blizzard does better than any other is their game patching system.  Even if you play single player only, the content delivery alone is worth the internet connection.  Let's be completely honest, though.  The internet connection requirement is a form of DRM.  It is the same form that steam uses.  Both feel unobtrusive to me.  You can do "off-line" mode on many steam games, but what does that matter?  Once again... constant patching and support and the ability to communicate with friends even when I'm not playing the same game as them are all a plus.

tl;dr

Blizzard does games right. Being connected to their servers, even for single player, means up-to-date patching and content.

Haha I still play WoW, just started a new character the other day. PRobably going to quit when the new expansion comes out, I think the whole panda aspect is too chinese/retarded.  Yeah, I dont mind it having to have a permanant internet connection to play. I love the diablo series, the story is awesome, thats whats so great about Blizzard games. They are so immersive its insane. I dont think I have ever played a Blizzard game and been like "man that was mediocre at best". The patching support is great, turmbar nailed it. I dont get why people get so uppity about having to have an internet connection to play. This day and age, who doesnt have reliable internet? Im super stoked about this. May 15th couldnt get here any sooner. 

Never even heard of Shenmue. 

The story is good, but I'm not in the same boat with the super immersed story lines.  The cut scenes are fantastic but outside of that, the story telling kind of suffers.  At the end of the day the Diablo series will live and die by the sword of gameplay.  If it's not intuitive and workable and expandable it will falter.

[ChrisK]

It's a dealbreaker when it comes to buying the game for me.  Online checks / online requirements for offline games be it during install or at runtime = no sale.  Simple as that.  Doesn't mean I'll pirate the game either, I simply won't buy it, won't play it, and consider it to not exist.  I do have to wonder just how many customers like me they've lost through these tactics.

Their bet is, fewer people than would have instead pirated if they had left it out.  Their gamble to make.

I buy a lot of games on Steam, so I can't argue too much against Internet-based DRM, but those games can be played offline, at least.  Always-on Internet DRM is bad IMHO because if someone messes up a router table or is performing maintenance or I simply have a problem with my ISP, I can't use my software.  And more sinister than that the company may decide they aren't going to "support" the old game anymore.  With always-on DRM you might lose the ability to play the game at all.  Anybody get their WON ID validated in Quake anytime recently?  (That one was not a problem because WON was chopped out before the game fell out of support.)

Always-on is where I draw the line, so I won't be buying Diablo 3.  Which is a bummer cause I played a LOT of Diablo 1 and 2.  A LOT.

[Dervacumen]

Don't think I'll buy this.  Man, it's getting harder and harder to find games that just let me play solitary on my computer without the whole Fing world needing to tap in to it.  It really is getting easier to let someone hack the thing first.  Ever just want to play a steam game, and have to sit there and wait for stuff to update when you don't have issues with it anyway?  It sucks.  It's like getting in your car to drive to the store and being forced to change the air in the tires because the old air is stale.

[kalars123]

I've got my D3:CE pre-ordered and pre-payed and also have D3 pre-purchase through blizzard.  I could care less about the whole have to be connected to the servers thing because I know it serves a real purpose.  It is not DRM like so many like to think it is, Blizzard made this game to be a client/server structure game like WoW to keep dupers,hackers,cheaters out period that is the only reason. If you were a long time player of D2 you know how bad it is/was. I seriously doubt that pirating/DRM was a meaningful reason they chose to go this route is it a bonus for them that the game will be nearly impossible to pirate for several years? sure.  But I think keeping the game secure and the economy safe were their primary concerns.

[Mikezilla]

I've got my D3:CE pre-ordered and pre-payed and also have D3 pre-purchase through blizzard.  I could care less about the whole have to be connected to the servers thing because I know it serves a real purpose.  It is not DRM like so many like to think it is, Blizzard made this game to be a client/server structure game like WoW to keep dupers,hackers,cheaters out period that is the only reason. If you were a long time player of D2 you know how bad it is/was. I seriously doubt that pirating/DRM was a meaningful reason they chose to go this route is it a bonus for them that the game will be nearly impossible to pirate for several years? sure.  But I think keeping the game secure and the economy safe were their primary concerns.

 

[ChrisK]

I know Diablo has had massive problems with dupers in the past.  I also know that people have managed to glitch money and items in WoW.  The client-server architecture will help reduce dupers, but it won't eliminate them.

I guess I see their DRM from the opposite perspective: they know this is going to be a mega seller, and if they can reduce piracy by even 5% it'll mean millions to them in revenues.  I feel this is a DRM scheme with a serendipitous reduction in duping.

Don't think I'll buy this.  Man, it's getting harder and harder to find games that just let me play solitary on my computer without the whole Fing world needing to tap in to it.  It really is getting easier to let someone hack the thing first.  Ever just want to play a steam game, and have to sit there and wait for stuff to update when you don't have issues with it anyway?  It sucks.  It's like getting in your car to drive to the store and being forced to change the air in the tires because the old air is stale.

The Steam auto-update thing I really like, just because it's completely hands-off.  No installers, no updaters, no keeping an eye out for new patches, no reinstalled borked games.  Just click buy, then click play.  If there's an update, wait for it to finish then click play.  It's an even nicer system than the consoles, IMHO, because I don't need to screw around with DVDs.

[kahlid74]

Don't think I'll buy this.  Man, it's getting harder and harder to find games that just let me play solitary on my computer without the whole Fing world needing to tap in to it.  It really is getting easier to let someone hack the thing first.  Ever just want to play a steam game, and have to sit there and wait for stuff to update when you don't have issues with it anyway?  It sucks.  It's like getting in your car to drive to the store and being forced to change the air in the tires because the old air is stale.

You can stop that if you want but I guess I just live in a different world.  I'm always connected so my stuff is never updating when I want to do something because it updated overnight or something else.  Then again I have a server rack in the basement so maybe I do exist in a different world lol.  Eitherway this doesn't bother me in the slightest.  It's a moot point now days.  Everything is connected, welcome to the information age.

[Vigo]

If it wasn't Diablo, I would agree with Dervacumen 100%. There are a ton of games that are dead to me because I hate being nagged by online crap. I don't have any internet on my arcade machine, and a most games I play, I don't even touch online mode. I don't want to sign up for an online account for every friggen game I get. I don't want my game to spend 2 minutes looking for updates every time I start up.

Diablo is one of those games that you sorta get to play online....even though single player is killer as well. The stupid separation rules between single player and multiplayer irked me in Diablo II. I haven't played in a few years, but I remember that they would delete your character if you didn't play for a couple months. Then if I remember right they had an open version of online multiplayer where characters wouldn't get deleted, but you couldn't play with a friend on the regular online version because they couldn't cross over. To be honest, the system it is kinda foggy to me. All I remember is getting pissed when my online character got deleted when I took a break from the game. I just stopped playing completely. For Diablo III, if they just shove everything on the same online system and don't ever delete my characters on me, I will be happy as a clam.

[fallacy]

Ya I don’t know why people are complaining about updates. It’s not like Blizzard releases broken games and then tries to update them later. Blizzard has already proved that they are perfection . They just make a great and completed game even better which will give you a longer playing time and more bang for your buck.

[shmokes]

It is not DRM like so many like to think it is, Blizzard made this game to be a client/server structure game like WoW to keep dupers,hackers,cheaters out period that is the only reason.

Why is everyone here talking like anti-piracy measures are not legitimate? Would you refuse to shop at a store because you know they have surveillance cameras? There's nothing per se wrong with anti-piracy measures. I understand if there are intrusive features. Like if the game can't be given away or sold to someone when you're finished with it? But nobody here's talking about anything like that. You all seem bent out of shape at the internet connection requirement itself? It seems almost like being angry at a poster manufacturer for requiring that you have a wall to use the poster. We all have always-on internet connections. What are the real concerns people have about this?


p.s. Don't misunderstand me. I have pirated (and continue to) a lot of content in my day. But that doesn't mean I think content creators oughtn't try to curb it.

[Vigo]

It is not DRM like so many like to think it is, Blizzard made this game to be a client/server structure game like WoW to keep dupers,hackers,cheaters out period that is the only reason.

Why is everyone here talking like anti-piracy measures are not legitimate? Would you refuse to shop at a store because you know they have surveillance cameras? There's nothing per se wrong with anti-piracy measures. I understand if there are intrusive features. Like if the game can't be given away or sold to someone when you're finished with it?

Speaking in general of DRM's, I think the difference in that analogy is that when you are done making your purchase at the store, the store is no longer watching you. Now if the store put a camera on that box of Captain Crunch after I bought it and brought it home I wouldn't be buying there anymore.

Likewise with software, I am fine with Serial numbers and and other hoops they want to throw at me when ordering and installing (yes, I know those get cracked routinely) but when a game makes me jump through their hoops every single time I want to use the game, I feel it degrades my purchase. I suddenly can't use the game unless I have a constant internet connection on the machine, I can't install it on my laptop so I can play it on the go, etc.

I think my general point is there is a place to draw the line, and games are starting to go over that line.

[shmokes]

I suppose that's true. But on the other hand the very thing that you take issue with IS the issue. The internet. Developers/publishers didn't always have to deal with the internet. Literally, if you want Bioshock or Call of Duty or Windows or Creative Suite, you can just go to Pirate Bay, plug the name into the search bar and anywhere from 1 to 60 minutes later the software is sitting on your computer, pre-cracked, ready to install. This dynamic is night-and-day different than what publishers were responding to when they introduced the serial number. So . . . I mean . . . is that part of the conversation? I suppose you could argue that, as a consumer, it's not part of the conversation--that internet piracy is the publisher's problem and it's not your job to be part of the solution. But what's the alternative for the publisher? Raise prices to compensate? That's probably not more palatable to the consumer than the DRM measures, plus it would likely encourage more piracy.

  It's complex. It's also a little bit interesting that the vast majority of people complaining about anti-piracy phoning home don't actually take issue with phoning home per se. You've got Dropbox running in the system tray. You play Draw Something. Your Skype and instant messaging apps. All kinds of software is interacting with company servers. So its not like most people fundamentally disagree with the concept of software communicating with a company's server, so long as the communications are adding value. But if that's the case, it seems like one could make a strong argument that the anti-piracy phoning home is adding value, albeit indirectly by keeping prices down or keeping the companies who make your software in business.

[Hoopz]

and and other hoops they want to throw at me when ordering and installing (yes, I know those get cracked routinely) but when a game makes me jump through their hoops every single time

Don't make it personal.   

[fallacy]

I suppose that's true. But on the other hand the very thing that you take issue with IS the issue. The internet. Developers/publishers didn't always have to deal with the internet. Literally, if you want Bioshock or Call of Duty or Windows or Creative Suite, you can just go to Pirate Bay, plug the name into the search bar and anywhere from 1 to 60 minutes later the software is sitting on your computer, pre-cracked, ready to install. This dynamic is night-and-day different than what publishers were responding to when they introduced the serial number. So . . . I mean . . . is that part of the conversation? I suppose you could argue that, as a consumer, it's not part of the conversation--that internet piracy is the publisher's problem and it's not your job to be part of the solution. But what's the alternative for the publisher? Raise prices to compensate? That's probably not more palatable to the consumer than the DRM measures, plus it would likely encourage more piracy.

 I dunno! It's complex. It's also a little bit interesting that the vast majority of people complaining about anti-piracy phoning home don't actually take issue with phoning home per se. You've got Dropbox running in the system tray. You play Draw Something. Your Skype and instant messaging apps. All kinds of software is interacting with company servers. So its not like most people fundamentally disagree with the concept of software communicating with a company's server, so long as the communications are adding value. But if that's the case, it seems like one could make a strong argument that the anti-piracy phoning home is adding value, albeit indirectly by keeping prices down or keeping the companies who make your software in business.

It’s not really that complex of an issue... The company can do whatever they want with their product. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. There sales will determine if the consumer does or does not like what they are doing.

Money talks everything else is wasted breath.

[Dervacumen]

I buy all of my PC games, with the exception of the latest Duke Nukem release which I tried for two levels and deleted.  I'm not concerned with the always on connection being DRM, I'm concerned because my connection gets lost frequently enough that it's a PITA.  It's why I don't play online games.  So for me, it's just irritatingly inconvenient.  When I want to play my single player game, I just want to play it.  The last time my connection went down was last night.

[shmokes]

The company can do whatever they want with their product. If you don’t like it don’t buy it. There sales will determine if the consumer does or does not like what they are doing.

Obviously the company CAN do what they want and consumers CAN purchase or not purchase. We're talking about shoulds. We're talking about whys.

[fallacy]

Reasons why they want their single player game connected to the net?
Because it’s far harder to pirate, in fact I am not sure if you will be able to pirate. I never heard of anyone pirating WOW.
Because they will have full control over the direction the game goes.
Because they are trying to pioneer the real money action house system.
The reasons why seem pretty blatant to me.

[shmokes]

No, that's not one of the whys we're talking about. We're not questioning whether the purpose of "anti-piracy phoning home" is to make games harder to pirate. You're right. That is pretty blatant.