The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Turambar on March 15, 2012, 11:22:33 pm
-
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/ (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 (http://imgur.com/a/cu5AR)
Diablo 3 is almost here!
(http://i.imgur.com/6fwHn.gif)
-
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?
-
maybe i should update my beta for diablo 3. wonder if they have added anything new
-
.
-
Hilarious, I loved the avatar one!
-
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.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t54/Kahlid74/PA-ColorPallette.jpg)
-
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0F2wPZWdYk
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.....
;D
cough..cough..
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=110848.0 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=110848.0)
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=97861.0 (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=97861.0)
Now if you excuse me, I have more pointless arguing to do. ;)
-
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....
-
I don't care which, give me shenmue III (Which I know is never going to happen :hissy: :hissy:) 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 :laugh:) 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.
-
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.....
;D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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... :o Mmmm Platforming, crafting goodness.
-
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. ;D
Never even heard of Shenmue. :dunno
-
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. ;D
Never even heard of Shenmue. :dunno
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:stupid
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
: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.
-
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. :P
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yeah, so WoW has been compromised, just like all other MMO's. They key is a good logging/auditing system where you can identify it during it's infancy stages and shut it down.
At the end of the day requiring an online connection provides more security than without, so that's why they went with it. Everything gets logged into their system and they can review that data at any time for any reason.
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.
Can you get a different connection? Different vendor/provider? This was one of the reasons I used to argue against online connectivity because not everyone had stable internet connections but now days, I just don't see too many people without stable connections so I don't think it's relevant.
-
Yeah, so WoW has been compromised, just like all other MMO's. They key is a good logging/auditing system where you can identify it during it's infancy stages and shut it down.
At the end of the day requiring an online connection provides more security than without, so that's why they went with it. Everything gets logged into their system and they can review that data at any time for any reason.
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.
Can you get a different connection? Different vendor/provider? This was one of the reasons I used to argue against online connectivity because not everyone had stable internet connections but now days, I just don't see too many people without stable connections so I don't think it's relevant.
I have AT&T DSL and I guess I could switch to comcast cable but then I'd think of switching my Directv. I live in nowhere with not many options and 15 miles from everywhere with a lot of options. A week after I bought this house I had the phone company running tests on my lines and they said nothing was wrong but I kept getting static during calls. LOUD static. That was ten years ago. There are gremlins somewhere but I object to tearing in to my house wiring so I can play a single player video game.
-
dsl is the devils tool switch to comcast, also just nitpicking here, D3 has never been advertised as anyrhing other than an obline multiplayer game outside the panels of blizzcon, and the dev videos I dont even think they have exclusivly mentioned the single player part of the game
-
Stupid double post
-
Would you refuse to shop at a store because you know they have surveillance cameras?
Nope. But I would stop shopping there if at any time they could decide to take their product back. Or render it useless by going out of business.
-
I totally understand that. I get the principles. But what I mean is what are those principles worth to you? I mean, say Red Dead Redemption is your favorite game of all time, but the ease of piracy with the mass distribution of Bit Torrent combined with 100 Mbit broadband connections makes a game of that scale impossible to make and remain profitable? It seems to me that at one point the question isn't whether you want the company to be able to render your game useless by going out of business, but whether the pros outweigh the cons--whether the DRM, which admittedly is not ideal for the consumer, is still preferable to not having the game.
My point is, it seems to me that everyone is like, "No way!" because the DRM sucks, without considering the possibility that maybe it's actually better than the alternative. And maybe it's not better. But the people who are just standing on an absolute principle don't seem to even be considering the possibility.
-
I totally understand that. I get the principles. But what I mean is what are those principles worth to you? I mean, say Red Dead Redemption is your favorite game of all time, but the ease of piracy with the mass distribution of Bit Torrent combined with 100 Mbit broadband connections makes a game of that scale impossible to make and remain profitable? It seems to me that at one point the question isn't whether you want the company to be able to render your game useless by going out of business, but whether the pros outweigh the cons--whether the DRM, which admittedly is not ideal for the consumer, is still preferable to not having the game.
My point is, it seems to me that everyone is like, "No way!" because the DRM sucks, without considering the possibility that maybe it's actually better than the alternative. And maybe it's not better. But the people who are just standing on an absolute principle don't seem to even be considering the possibility.
The alternative to the intrusive DRM is a pig pile of quality games that keep the DRM within reason. I don't buy any Ubisoft games since they started the always-on DRM crap for single-player games and while I'm missing out on some great Assassin's Creed games, there are plenty of great games available from publishers I'm willing to give my cash.
I bought RDR twice (PS3 and 360) even though I have the ability to pirate it on both platforms. I'm willing to pay for quality and I'm willing to pass up a good game if it has unacceptable DRM.
Speaking of awesome alternatives, Syndicate (http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/syndicate) is on sale for $3 right now at gog.com.
-
But how intrusive is it, really? I mean, five years ago yeah, and maybe for a small subset of the population. But, like, I play Draw Something on a near daily basis and the fact that I need to have an active internet connection is entirely transparent. I don't even think about it. I mean, really, anymore is actively checking for anti-piracy any more intrusive than if you make a service call to a plumber and before they send someone out they make sure you don't have an unpaid balance with them? Cos in principle it seem like that's essentially what's happening. Before you play the game the creator is making sure that you purchased the game. And the process for almost everyone is 100% transparent. You don't see it happen. Your internet is always on and the amount of bandwidth the antipiracy check uses is negligible.
It's not intrusive. I mean, if you didn't know it was happening you wouldn't even know it was happening. I think It's offending other sensibilities, for the most part.
-
Draw Something is a multiplayer game and one you don't even need to pay for. You can't play it without an internet connection, so if they want to authenticate every session of your free game I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Intrusive is putting mandatory authentication in my single-player game so I can't play it when I'm on the road or years later when the company shuts down their servers.
I just found my missing disc from Grim Fandango so I can finally play it again. I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't because the authentication servers were gone.
-
Anyone who is ok with always on line internet connectivity as DRM doesnt have comcast as an ISP
-
Nope. But I would stop shopping there if at any time they could decide to take their product back. Or render it useless by going out of business.
Intrusive is putting mandatory authentication in my single-player game so I can't play it when I'm on the road or years later when the company shuts down their servers.
I just found my missing disc from Grim Fandango so I can finally play it again. I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't because the authentication servers were gone.
You’re really that worried about playing it once 10 years later? Fail, concern is fail...Pfff I am sure at that point someone will make a hack version that you could play in an emulator or watever.
You do realize the price of the game is the same as you dish out to your internet provider every month. We are not talking a sizable investment for your entertainment her.
-
Draw Something is a multiplayer game and one you don't even need to pay for. You can't play it without an internet connection, so if they want to authenticate every session of your free game I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Intrusive is putting mandatory authentication in my single-player game so I can't play it when I'm on the road or years later when the company shuts down their servers.
I just found my missing disc from Grim Fandango so I can finally play it again. I'd be pretty pissed if I couldn't because the authentication servers were gone.
You miss the point. It doesn't matter whether Draw Something was free or whether I paid $1000 for it. Either way, I wouldn't know whether it's phoning home. Obviously it is because it's an online game, but the point is, it's totally transparent. It's not like I have a dial-up modem and must connect to the internet. I'm already connected. 24-hours per day. The game just uses that open door.
As for on the road, it's just a made up thing. Honestly it is. A #1 you don't actually play games on the road that aren't on your phone/iPad. Hypothetically yes, but realistically . . . it doesn't happen. Let's be honest. And even if I'm wrong, where are you playing that you don't have internet these days? You have to be literally on the road, cos god knows your hotel has free Wi-Fi (and even then there's a good chance you've got mobile hotspot on your phone). Are you driving? Cos you probably don't need to be playing Diablo 3 while you drive. It's just a hypothetical to get up in arms about--but the chances of it affecting you are actually near zero.
-
Anyone who is ok with always on line internet connectivity as DRM doesnt have comcast as an ISP
Comcast is my internet provider since I moved here in October and my internet has gone down exactly zero times since then. Maybe it'll go down tomorrow, but even so, once every six months ain't that bad.
-
Anyone who is ok with always on line internet connectivity as DRM doesnt have comcast as an ISP
Comcast is my internet provider since I moved here in October and my internet has gone down exactly zero times since then. Maybe it'll go down tomorrow, but even so, once every six months ain't that bad.
exceptions to every rule. Perhaps I'm jaded because I used to work for them, or I'm jaded cause its dropped 3 times this year alone.
-
ooh, dont get me started at how bad my internet was when I was with comcast.....not to mention the monthly bill. I also don't miss the bandwidth throttling.
-
The bill is awful. Unfortunately, while FIOS is in my area, it's not in my building. So the only alternative is DSL, which is hardly an alternative.
-
As for on the road, it's just a made up thing. Honestly it is. A #1 you don't actually play games on the road that aren't on your phone/iPad. Hypothetically yes, but realistically . . . it doesn't happen. Let's be honest. And even if I'm wrong, where are you playing that you don't have internet these days? You have to be literally on the road, cos god knows your hotel has free Wi-Fi (and even then there's a good chance you've got mobile hotspot on your phone). Are you driving? Cos you probably don't need to be playing Diablo 3 while you drive. It's just a hypothetical to get up in arms about--but the chances of it affecting you are actually near zero.
It's not a hypothetical problem to me. When I go to New Jersey on business I work goofy hours so all my down time is at times of the day when nothing is open. I'm stuck in a hotel with intermittent internet and very poor cell reception. It's pretty frustrating to not be able to play a single player game because I can't get a connection. Eight weeks straight away from home can make me pretty cranky, so I've got a bit of a chip on my shoulder about phone-home DRM.
-
You do realize the price of the game is the same as you dish out to your internet provider every month. We are not talking a sizable investment for your entertainment her.
So less than a pay-per-view MMA, right ?
;)
As for on the road, it's just a made up thing. Honestly it is. A #1 you don't actually play games on the road that aren't on your phone/iPad. Hypothetically yes, but realistically . . . it doesn't happen. Let's be honest. And even if I'm wrong, where are you playing that you don't have internet these days? You have to be literally on the road, cos god knows your hotel has free Wi-Fi (and even then there's a good chance you've got mobile hotspot on your phone). Are you driving? Cos you probably don't need to be playing Diablo 3 while you drive. It's just a hypothetical to get up in arms about--but the chances of it affecting you are actually near zero.
You don't travel much, do you ?
While it is currently a hypothetical for me (I don't travel much for business any more), that isn't so for everybody (although, realistically, we have so many choices for entertainment inflight that it may be more of a hypothetical than I admit).
My point is, it seems to me that everyone is like, "No way!" because the DRM sucks, without considering the possibility that maybe it's actually better than the alternative. And maybe it's not better. But the people who are just standing on an absolute principle don't seem to even be considering the possibility.
This is a statement that I can totally agree with.
For my part, I am enjoying The Legend of Grimrock, which cost me $12 and has no intrusive DRM.
-
You don't travel much, do you ?
I don't. But neither do the vast majority of people. And these days if you ARE a person who travels a lot for work you very probably have 3G or even LTE internet connectivity, if not on the laptop itself, then via mobile hotspot. And if not, as I said, you'll have internet access in your hotel. I suppose it's a bit of a pain not being able to play on a plane, but how big a deal is that really? You can't play tennis on a plane either, but that won't stop you buying a racquet. Just consider Diablo like tennis--an awsome game that can't be played on a plane (or pay extra for in-flight WiFi, like paying for an in-flight tennis court, which I totally would do). And like you said, there's no shortage of other entertainment options on a plane. It seems like potentially a bit melodramatic to refuse to get a game you really want just cos you can't play it on a plane. Like . . . just play that one elsewhere.
-
I've seen Comcast be a nightmare and I've seen it be fine. The key to this is to remember the medium. Cable as a medium is a shared pipe per section. So it can have good days, bad days and NIGHTMARISH days. Additionally in highly dense/populated areas the sharing can be to such an extreme that you never have a chance to talk.
I'm always blown away at the degradation of our communication systems in the USA. We're so behind on infrastructure that sometimes I forget how old the outlying areas are structure wise.
Either way I'm not a fan of DRM but always online for Diablo 3 doesn't upset me because I know that there is no theoretical "single player" in Diablo 3. Every game is now an online game and as such the Auction House has presence. And since something holding real money is now connected we'd need to make sure all the items are good to go.
-
The security camera analogy isn't a good one because they are completely passive devices. I don't like intrusive DRM. I remember waaaaay back when Diablo 1 was released I brought my copy home from Best Buy and installed it. When I tried to run it, I got an error that told me to insert the original CD into the drive. I couldn't play the game.
Turned out they had copy protection in the game where it would read your CD-ROM drive in CD audio mode to make sure you had the original CD. I imagine the idea was that it was hard (at the time) to rip a multi-mode CD (one with data and audio tracks), so if the game detected a CD without the appropriate audio tracks you were deemed a dirty pirate. The problem for me was I didn't have a CD audio cable attached from my CD-ROM drive to my Sound Blaster, so I always failed the check. I had to go download a crack for the game to play it.
There are countless other examples of DRM screwing things up for legitimate owners. There are also systems that are customer-friendly (like Steam). I won't buy Ubisoft games or D3 for their always-on DRM, but I've got a boatload of games purchased from Steam. I'm happy to buy stuff, I'm just not willing to be screwed with when I do buy stuff.
-
That's the point I tried to illustrate with Draw Something. I just turn the game on and play it. It never asks me to connect to the internet. It just does what it needs to do with the connection that's always on. The same is true for games that do online checks. The are not intrusive. They may be other things. They me violate legitimate conceptions of property rights. They may violate privacy. But they are not intrusive. They are the opposite. They're invisible. The check typically takes place in the background and if you didn't know it was happening you'd never know it was happening. In that respect it's actually LESS intrusive than a typical suveillance camera, since at least you can usually SEE the camera and you know you're being recorded.
-
Ah, sorry Shmokes. I misread your post.
Behind-the-scenes check-ins are disturbing to me, too. If you run an app-level firewall on your computer you'll know just how many programs check in. It's a LOT of them! Many are just doing it under the auspices of an update check, but there's nothing to stop a program from sending any information it wants when checking for an update. Such as: "my name is Chris' Computer, I'm running win7, my Win7 product ID is 123, I've got version 3.4 of your app installed, oh and by the way here's the Firefox password file for this user".
Not saying any apps do that, but even without root access on a machine an application can behave very badly without your knowledge.
-
This has been an interesting discussion. The example of Draw something rubs me the wrong way though...this game and many like it on android (words with friends) seem to want to integrate so much with all the social media crap. I don't want it all connected. So it bothers me to be forced to in order to play the game. This seems to be a issue I have personally with android. I just have to get over it since it's the direction the software is going.
I have much less of an issue with steam. Even though the distribution system is on line I have had good luck playing in offline mode. Playing a game like Diablo 3 however I'm torn. While I do not like the idea that I am limited in how or when I play the game it becomes less of an issue since they made it very clear before I purchased the game. So if I buy it, it's my choice.
-
using "drawsomething" as a parallel is ---smurfing--- stupid. You cant play that game alone, cause you would already know what you drew. The capacity to play Diablo 3 solo is there, I'm actually OK with the DRM but I'll be bitching and moaning when the server goes down, or my internet goes down, or they eclipse the server and I load it up on my 50th birthday for nostalgia and cant play.
-
It doesn't matter whether you're playing alone or with 50 million people. The point is, if you can't tell that the program is phoning home it's not intrusive. I'm using Draw Something as an example merely to illustrate how non-disruptive online communications are anymore.
-
Draw something . . . seem(s) to want to integrate so much with all the social media crap. I don't want it all connected. So it bothers me to be forced to in order to play the game.
I'm the same way. I have no apps installed on Facebook for this reason. There have been many times that I've clicked a link, thinking, "Oh, that sounds cool . . . I'd like to do that," only to be faced with the app installation page that says things like, "This app can post things to your friends' walls . . ." At which point I always click cancel. Why would I ever trust anyone, let alone some faceless corporation, to post things ostensibly from me onto my friends' wall?
When I first fired up Draw Something, I thought the same thing. However, upon closer inspection it became clear that this isn't necessary. You can connect with Facebook OR simply provide an email address. It can just be a throwaway email address that you'll never use, too. They just need some unique way to identify you. Beyond that you can connect with people either by being matched randomly or by typing in their usernames. No need to interface with Facebook.
-
It doesn't matter whether you're playing alone or with 50 million people. The point is, if you can't tell that the program is phoning home it's not intrusive. I'm using Draw Something as an example merely to illustrate how non-disruptive online communications are anymore.
You're missing my point. You're using an online only multi-player only game that cant be played solo as a reason that all games are ok to have an online check. Does not compute.
Diablo 3 having to check back home is more akin to not being able to play Super Mario World unless your XBand is online. I know they are doing to to prevent duping and the like because of the auction house, and like I said I'm ok with *THIS* game doing it, but that doesn't mean its ok for ALL games to do it.
-
I think for me the bottom line is that if Diablo 3 turns out to be Amazing! I will get it knowing that I'll have to only play it when I have an internet connection.
I don't play steam games offline a lot but I have done it. Sometimes there just isn't wifi available. Which is too bad for me if I'm in one of those situations and want to play.
-
You're missing my point. You're using an online only multi-player only game that cant be played solo as a reason that all games are ok to have an online check. Does not compute.
Jesus Christ on a stick, how many ways can I say this? I'm not missing your point. You're just hammering on a straw man. I used Draw Something as an illustration of how seemless and entirely invisible phoning home is these days. NOTHING MORE. I didn't say "Draw Something phones home and thus so should every other game be able to," or anything of the sort. I said that phoning home isn't typically intrusive. It's not. It's invisible. Completely.
You're wrong anyway. The fact that some game uses online communication for gameplay purposes doesn't somehow legitimize communications that are otherwise wrong. EA couldn't very well steal personal info from your computer on the grounds that you gave FIFA permission to play against online opponents. If online DRM checking is fundamentally wrong it is wrong regardless of whether you've given the company permission to comminicate online for other reasons.
-
My point is you keep glossing over the fact drawsomething cant be played offline by yourself and is a bad example. You can be as blasphemous as you want, it's still valid.
-
Im gonna stop, its mostly just me pushing your buttons for fun.
Im gonna buy diablo 3 because I loved the first 2 so much, when not being able to play because I cant phone home happens its gonna suck, but its just a game. I dont buy a lot of PC games (I dont steal them like fallacy either) so if the model switches to internet DRM it wont have huge impact on me either way, but it will be one less reason for me to want to buy games.
take care, and happy gaming.
T
-
I think there may be a misnomer here, Diablo 3 is for all intensive purposes now a F2P MMO. It's online, it has a central queuing system and a buyable items system, it can't be played offline, and when you create a game logically it's really just another instanced zone.
So all other parallels don't hold up, because it's no longer just a RPG, it's an MMORPG in the true essence.
So in truth, Draw something and Diablo 3 are identical in that they are both MMO's.
Diablo 1/2 weren't MMO's but D3 is. It's a design decision Blizzard went with after WoW's monster success. Every game they make now will be an MMO and will be F2P.
-
It's a design decision Blizzard went with after WoW's monster success.
I think this is why folks have got their panties all in a twist...
-
Diablo 3 has single player mode. You can play the whole game single player like you could the previous 2 games. :dunno Yes, they expanded the multiplayer and crippled the single player with the always online DRM. You can't even pause in single player mode anymore. From what I heard though, its single player mode is cool with NPC characters that will campaign with you, which is what D2 needed. Actually gives purpose to the paladin's skills in single player.
Unless I am campaigning with friends, I actually always preferred single player mode. I could play much more casually, I never felt obligated to play more than an hour at a time and these days I have to pause video games on a very regular basis. I am a little sad that since my gaming is spread out more, I might be "too old" for Diablo III. :( The crippling of single player with the DRM probably gonna keep me from buying this game. and mostly because I won't be able to pause. Its kinda sad because I love the Diablo games so much.
-
Diablo 3 has single player mode. You can play the whole game single player like you could the previous 2 games. :dunno Yes, they expanded the multiplayer and crippled the single player with the always online DRM. You can't even pause in single player mode anymore. From what I heard though, its single player mode is cool with NPC characters that will campaign with you, which is what D2 needed. Actually gives purpose to the paladin's skills in single player.
Unless I am campaigning with friends, I actually always preferred single player mode. I could play much more casually, I never felt obligated to play more than an hour at a time and these days I have to pause video games on a very regular basis. I am a little sad that since my gaming is spread out more, I might be "too old" for Diablo III. :( The crippling of single player with the DRM probably gonna keep me from buying this game. and mostly because I won't be able to pause. Its kinda sad because I love the Diablo games so much.
I'd still challenge you that it's not true single player. It's inability to be played offline anymore transitions it to an MMO IMO.
-
D3 has no true single player mode, it's all online you use 1 char for both going alone and with friends, when you play a single player game it's a "closed invite only" online game not single player, there is no option for single player.
-
D3 has no true single player mode, it's all online you use 1 char for both going alone and with friends, when you play a single player game it's a "closed invite only" online game not single player, there is no option for single player.
so if I play the game from beginning to end by myself its not a single player experience?
-
you can play the game start to finish by yourself but it is still a multiplayer game as you friends can drop in and drop out at any time. The always on "drm" is not drm this is an online game period just like WoW or EQ or LOTRO or SWTOR...ect you can play those games by yourself but it is not a single player game is it? It's an online game no room for argument Blizzard has never advertised it as anything but an online game if you don't like that then don't buy the game and quit complaining.
-
you can play the game start to finish by yourself but it is still a multiplayer game as you friends can drop in and drop out at any time. The always on "drm" is not drm this is an online game period just like WoW or EQ or LOTRO or SWTOR...ect you can play those games by yourself but it is not a single player game is it? It's an online game no room for argument Blizzard has never advertised it as anything but an online game if you don't like that then don't buy the game and quit complaining.
Your inability to read and comprehend is mesmerizing. Sorry though, Im not in the mood for your delicious troll bait :*
-
Blizzard has never advertised it as anything but an online game
From Blizzard:
"Under threat of a forum member's taser "of teh win," public relations staff explained that designed to be a revolutionary single-player and online role-playing experience, Diablo III will set players on a multitude of dynamically generated quests on the path to defeat the demonic forces of Diablo and his demon brothers Baal and Mephisto. Eight brand new and re-imagined character classes [zzap! aieee!] will be highly customizable in appearance and abilities, with 20 hero-specific skills per character and 10 shared abilities used to battle over 300 varieties of monsters in and an immersive 3D-graphics world.
Set in the massive worlds of Sanctuary, Hell, and the High Heavens, Diablo III will include a compelling single-player story mode, as well as fast-paced online play through an upgraded version of Blizzard's renowned online gaming service, Battle.net®."
http://www.planetdiablo.com/features/articles/d3-04012008/ (http://www.planetdiablo.com/features/articles/d3-04012008/)
Just saying. ;)
-
WTF are you kids all on about ?
It ain't like this is Robotron or anything that matters!
Get offa my lawn!
;)
-
WTF are you kids all on about ?
It ain't like this is Robotron or anything that matters!
Get offa my lawn!
;)
You mean Centipede.
Where's Donk been lately? That should raise his dander. :)
-
That sounds like a really important argument, kahlid.
:lol
World Peace, Food for all, Water for all and Why diablo 3 shouldn't be thought of as having a single player game! Sounds like my priorities are right on track.
so if I play the game from beginning to end by myself its not a single player experience?
So if I play an instance in WoW from Beginning to End by myself, is that a single player experience? Is WoW then a single player game? Single player game no, but experience, yes. So now we're into semantics. Diablo 3 provides a single player experience but it is not a single player game. It's an MMO with instanced single player experiences while providing many of the large collective MMO benefits (AH, Multiplayer, Friends system, groupings, etc.)
Once you realize it's an MMO you get over the always on they want. It's an MMO, it has to be always on.
-
So now we're into semantics.
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/24/orly_bowie.jpg)
Even Captain Pedantic would be embarrassed.
-
So now we're into semantics.
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/24/orly_bowie.jpg)
Even Captain Pedantic would be embarrassed.
hmmm?
(http://i.imgur.com/8Nlum.jpg)
-
Y'all are barking up the wrong tree. By endorsing server-side DRM checks for multiplayer games but condemning it for single-player games you're shooting yourself in the foot. You're
seducing reducing your argument to one of inconvenience, i.e., since you already have to be online for an online game the DRM check causes no inconvenience and is, hence, okay. But that's a tacit admission that online DRM check for a single-player game is also okay so long as it causes no inconvenience. Which is where your argument really begins to lose steam because you have an always-on internet connection and the DRM check happens in the background without you ever even being aware that it happened.
By saying there's a difference between online and offline games you are effectively endorsing the DRM check for both.
edit: lol, typo
-
1) I don't think anyone here arguing anti-single player DRM check is actually Pro online gaming DRM checking. Maybe ok with checking against hacks and cheats, but that is different from DRM.
2) You are still missing the point that people do not have an online connection in all cases. I might have online at home with my laptop, but not on the bus, a plane, my parent's house or at my office. If I like to play online at home with my $50 mouse, but play sinle player on the road since I only have the touchpad, the DRM is screwing the pooch there.
-
Once you realize it's an MMO you get over the always on they want. It's an MMO, it has to be always on.
Man you are just a troll bait chef, kudos! Scroll up and read what vigo posted, I'll wait.
Done? YAY! Lets get back to semantics, you say its an MMO? MMO meaning Massively multiplayer online?
http://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_3_Basics (http://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_3_Basics)
The main focus of Diablo III is co-op PvE style play. Up to four players (yes, just four) will join up in a game and play together, and players in the same game are now always friendly and in the same party. There is no non-consensual PvP in Diablo III, and no way to "go hostile" in a PvE game. (All PvP takes place in the Arena, a feature that will not be ready for use upon Diablo 3's launch.)
I hope my PC can handle 3 other players all at the same time. As for WoW, yes it counts, if you can pick some sort of mode where its single player and you don't allow others to join you game or effect your world at all.
-
By saying there's a difference between online and offline games you are effectively endorsing the DRM check for both.
You're just reading more than whats posted , that's all. To me , it'd be stupid not to do some sort of online check for a online multiplayer game, if you can only play it online why wouldn't they validate? I would hope the server checking is more to stop hacking and cheating, which is supposed to be the purpose of what blizzard is doing. I already said I'm gonna be pissed when I try to play D3 and cant because my ISP sucks donkey dick. I don't recall anyone saying "Man it'd be ok if they server side DRM checked my single player game if it was convenient!"
-
I don't recall anyone saying "Man it'd be ok if they server side DRM checked my single player game if it was convenient!"
That's because you're only paying attention to what is explicitly stated, rather than also at the statements' implications. When someone says, "I don't mind online checks for online games because I already have to be online," what the mean is, "The DRM in this instance does not impose any additional inconvenience on me." It means they don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the DRM checks, else they would oppose said checks for online games as well.
-
@Malenko Look man i understand that you may want to play it when your out and about that's cool, the point i'm trying to get across is that the online check, is not a check all game modes single player or otherwise is all online it isn't like D1/D2 where you had the entire game on your computer and you just logged in to play online, it's a client/server type of game like an MMO the only asset's you have on your computer is the base game engine and graphic assets everything else is generated server side all the AI,loot drops, map layout...ect they did it this way to prevent dupes/hacks/bots...ect that's all i'm trying to get across.
And as for DRM checks for single player/multi-player, online/offline I don't have an issue with them at all as long as they are not intrusive or interfere with the gameplay in other words more like steam and less like ubisoft
-
Then you're just twisting what people say into what you want to hear, you are a lawyer and its in your nature :) . If I have to be online to play an online game that's one thing, if I have to be online to play a game that could be played while offline, that's another.
schmokie-pie, I'm not arguing with you we're pretty much on the same side. I dont really like any sort of DRM, I'm not an ---uvula--- pirate like Fallacy. I spend way to much of my hard earned money not by stealing stuff but by buying. I even buy humble indie bundles that I dont expect to play just to support developers. I wish big companies trusted me like I'm forced to trust them. If you're ever in Delaware I'll kick back with you and buy you some beers, its all good bro. :cheers:
-
Once you realize it's an MMO you get over the always on they want. It's an MMO, it has to be always on.
Man you are just a troll bait chef, kudos! Scroll up and read what vigo posted, I'll wait.
Done? YAY! Lets get back to semantics, you say its an MMO? MMO meaning Massively multiplayer online?
http://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_3_Basics (http://www.diablowiki.net/Diablo_3_Basics)
The main focus of Diablo III is co-op PvE style play. Up to four players (yes, just four) will join up in a game and play together, and players in the same game are now always friendly and in the same party. There is no non-consensual PvP in Diablo III, and no way to "go hostile" in a PvE game. (All PvP takes place in the Arena, a feature that will not be ready for use upon Diablo 3's launch.)
I hope my PC can handle 3 other players all at the same time. As for WoW, yes it counts, if you can pick some sort of mode where its single player and you don't allow others to join you game or effect your world at all.
I'm not on the same page as you with the troll bait, but to each their own. We should start advertising WoW as single player because it satisfies your above statement when instancing.
For people with poor internet connections it sucks, no doubt about it. My next question would then be do you avoid MMO's all together because of said connection troubles or have you tried them and experienced a horrific time trying to play and continually getting disconnected?
-
Here's an interesting interview from Jay Wilson, the Game Director of Diablo 3 who basically says they see it as a multiplayer game primarily. Very interesting to hear why he says they chose some things over others. I also found it funny he described the single player experience just like WoW lol. He also says those with poor internet connections will be just fine as they've built in way to "hide" latency issues but I'll wait to see that in the real world.
http://games.on.net/article/15544/Video_Interview_Jay_Wilson_On_Diablo_IIIs_Ladders_Latency_Piracy_and_More (http://games.on.net/article/15544/Video_Interview_Jay_Wilson_On_Diablo_IIIs_Ladders_Latency_Piracy_and_More)
Here's an extended interview too that's got lots of good stuff.
http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/3205698 (http://www.ausgamers.com/features/read/3205698)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/79sr3.png)
-
What the hell does that picture have to do with the message on the poster? And how is the moment described in the poster "awkward"? Frustrating, sure. Irritating, of course. But awkward? Everything about that poster is retarded. Please delete it.
-
What the hell does that picture have to do with the message on the poster? And how is the moment described in the poster "awkward"? Frustrating, sure. Irritating, of course. But awkward? Everything about that poster is retarded. Please delete it.
if I would have known you hated it so much I would have posted it four times.
Also,
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/that-awkward-moment (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/that-awkward-moment)
That awkward moment when the know it all doesnt seem to know it all ;) :cheers:
Is this one easier for you to get?
(http://i.imgur.com/JT3Je.png)
-
if I would have known you hated it so much I would have posted it four times.
:laugh2:
-
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/that-awkward-moment (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/that-awkward-moment)
That awkward moment when the know it all doesnt seem to know it all ;) :cheers:
No . . . you misunderstand. I know what an awkward moment is. The thing you described just isn't one.
-
No . . . you misunderstand. I know what an awkward moment is. The thing you described just isn't one.
well now then you're half way there, go learn what a MEME is.
(http://i.imgur.com/79sr3.png)
EDIT: I don't think you understand, I didn't make that picture.
-
What I don't understand is why shmokes was so pissed about it (and I write that knowing that I have gotten unreasonably pissed about things in the past).
-
What I don't understand is why shmokes was so pissed about it (and I write that knowing that I have gotten unreasonably pissed about things in the past).
me either.
(http://i.imgur.com/79sr3.png)
-
Dare I bump for the fourth posting ?
-
I know what a meme is. But the meme has to be used properly or it doesn't work. It doesn't work to say, "That Awkward Moment when I was in a hurry but kept hitting red lights," or, "That Awkward Moment when the 9-1-1 operator said '9 1 1 emergency, hold please'." Because the whole point is to follow, "That awkward moment when," with an awkward moment.
-
What I don't understand is why shmokes was so pissed about it (and I write that knowing that I have gotten unreasonably pissed about things in the past).
Lmao . . . I wasn't pissed. My humor tends to be dry. I wouldn't seriously ask someone to "please delete" a picture because I thought it sucked. If anything I'd actually be a little bit pissed if he listened to me and deleted the thing, because then it would be gone (since I didn't quote Melenko's post in mine) and my post would have lost context.
-
I know what a meme is. But the meme has to be used properly or it doesn't work. It doesn't work to say, "That Awkward Moment when I was in a hurry but kept hitting red lights," or, "That Awkward Moment when the 9-1-1 operator said '9 1 1 emergency, hold please'." Because the whole point is to follow, "That awkward moment when," with an awkward moment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awkward (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awkward)
definition #4
Also,
(http://i.imgur.com/FqZA9.jpg)
for a change of pace.
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awkward (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awkward)
definition #4
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws)
Except . . . that's not the definition on which the meme is based.
-
I know what a meme is. But the meme has to be used properly or it doesn't work. It doesn't work to say, "That Awkward Moment when I was in a hurry but kept hitting red lights," or, "That Awkward Moment when the 9-1-1 operator said '9 1 1 emergency, hold please'." Because the whole point is to follow, "That awkward moment when," with an awkward moment.
Well played ... Mr Pocket Dialer. ;)
:applaud:
:cheers:
-
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasping+at+straws)
Except . . . that's not the definition on which the meme is based.
I didnt invent the MEME or the picture, sometimes you just gotta look at something and laugh, not (over) analyze.
(http://i.imgur.com/79sr3.png)
-
For everybody that is locked out of Diablo 3, I am having a lot of fun with Legend Of Grimrock (http://grimrock.net), which is absolutely designed as a single-player game without any dial-home-style protection.
And the price is perfect.
-
I've been playing Titan Quest (http://store.steampowered.com/app/4540/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1), a diablo clone set in ancient Greece. Plenty of loot with no server overloads.
-
My favorite Diablo 3 "review" (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-diablo-iii-represents-gamings-annoying-future/) so far.
-
My favorite Diablo 3 "review" (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-diablo-iii-represents-gamings-annoying-future/) so far.
Hilarious article. :cheers:
-
It's a fun game, I say as I depart my cave of game dwelling goodness. The difficulty doesn't scale they way they wanted it too and the people leveling have clearly shown that nothing short of 72 hours of straight game playing will stop them from defeating all difficulties as fast as possible.
The servers going down was annoying but alas, in our world obsessed with "I want it now" what would we expect people to do? I'm pleased. The game plays great. The items are great. The feel of Diablo is back and the story (what little of it exists) continues to be fleshed out.
I'm happy with my purchase.
-
It's a fun game, I say as I depart my cave of game dwelling goodness. The difficulty doesn't scale they way they wanted it too and the people leveling have clearly shown that nothing short of 72 hours of straight game playing will stop them from defeating all difficulties as fast as possible.
The servers going down was annoying but alas, in our world obsessed with "I want it now" what would we expect people to do? I'm pleased. The game plays great. The items are great. The feel of Diablo is back and the story (what little of it exists) continues to be fleshed out.
I'm happy with my purchase.
There's so much self-contradiction there it's hard to know where to start. Nothing short of 72 hours of straight game playing will stop them . . . ? So 72 hours of straight game playing WILL stop them? I'm honestly not sure what your first paragraph means.
In our world of "I want it now" the thing we would expect is for Blizzard to anticipate server strain and provide appropriate capacity. Obviously. Jesus, it's not like they were hit with a DDoS. They were hit with EXACTLY what was expected. We're talking about the company behind BY FAR the biggest online videogame in history. It's not like they were caught with their pants down. There's no excuse.
And how do you in the same sentence describe the story as both "what little of it exists" and "fleshed out"? Those seem like almost opposite things. Don't get me wrong. A game doesn't need a strong, fleshed out narrative to be fun. But are you sure Diablo has a "fleshed out" story?
-
There's so much self-contradiction there it's hard to know where to start. Nothing short of 72 hours of straight game playing will stop them . . . ? So 72 hours of straight game playing WILL stop them? I'm honestly not sure what your first paragraph means.
The idea is that playing the game straight for 72 hours would cause them to need sleep/sustenance forcing them to stop. On the subreddit of Diablo the guys/gals who got to level 60/inferno in two days basically played 24/7. So it was more a figure of speech that nothing short of the limits of the human body would stop them from reaching the end game as fast as possible. No coding/additional difficulties by Blizzard would prevent them from reaching the end game.
In our world of "I want it now" the thing we would expect is for Blizzard to anticipate server strain and provide appropriate capacity. Obviously. Jesus, it's not like they were hit with a DDoS. They were hit with EXACTLY what was expected. We're talking about the company behind BY FAR the biggest online videogame in history. It's not like they were caught with their pants down. There's no excuse.
I've got a bit of experience with data centers and traffic and I'll say this, traffic does not always behave the way you anticipate it to. There are also budgetary factors at play here and I've been down that road too. What is experienced on a launch day of a hot game posses similarities to a DDoS. I've been on the ground in data centers when events like this occur and it's a fun/terrifying experience.
And how do you in the same sentence describe the story as both "what little of it exists" and "fleshed out"? Those seem like almost opposite things. Don't get me wrong. A game doesn't need a strong, fleshed out narrative to be fun. But are you sure Diablo has a "fleshed out" story?
I'll clarify. In a game, Diablo, where story was never been one of the strong points and where much of the history of said game has not been told, it's nice to see Diablo 3 trying to tell a lot of those back stories such as the story about the high heavens and the story about all of the lords of hell. I didn't say it was fleshed out, I said they continued too.
-
I played in Saturday on a friend's laptop. The zombie thing bores me to no end but I'm still twitching trying to resist going out and buying this thing.
It gets better once you get out of Act I. 2/3/4 are all jam packed with new monsters and you don't have to really worry about Zombies until you go back to Act I on NM/Hell/Inferno.
-
I've got a bit of experience with data centers and traffic and I'll say this, traffic does not always behave the way you anticipate it to. There are also budgetary factors at play here and I've been down that road too. What is experienced on a launch day of a hot game posses similarities to a DDoS. I've been on the ground in data centers when events like this occur and it's a fun/terrifying experience.
They had preorders and sales projections to gauge what the server demand would be during the launch week. Nobody preorders a game or buys it on launch day only to put it in a drawer and play it a month later. Especially a game with the feverish anticipation of something like the Diablo franchise. And there were no budgetary factors at play (or at least there should not have been). We're talking about a game that will make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for Blizzard/Activision. Hundreds of millions. You build out the appropriate server capacity for a game like that. And to deliberately fail to do so because you know that after the launch-week server demand will be dramatically lower would be a terrible business decision. Look at all the bad will and negative press this has generated. You meet launch week demand and then repurpose excess server capacity later on. You don't leave millions of users unable to play their new game so you can squeeze out a few extra pennies of short-term profit. That's ---smurfing--- retarded.
-
I've got a bit of experience with data centers and traffic and I'll say this, traffic does not always behave the way you anticipate it to. There are also budgetary factors at play here and I've been down that road too. What is experienced on a launch day of a hot game posses similarities to a DDoS. I've been on the ground in data centers when events like this occur and it's a fun/terrifying experience.
They had preorders and sales projections to gauge what the server demand would be during the launch week. Nobody preorders a game or buys it on launch day only to put it in a drawer and play it a month later. Especially a game with the feverish anticipation of something like the Diablo franchise. And there were no budgetary factors at play (or at least there should not have been). We're talking about a game that will make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for Blizzard/Activision. Hundreds of millions. You build out the appropriate server capacity for a game like that. And to deliberately fail to do so because you know that after the launch-week server demand will be dramatically lower would be a terrible business decision. Look at all the bad will and negative press this has generated. You meet launch week demand and then repurpose excess server capacity later on. You don't leave millions of users unable to play their new game so you can squeeze out a few extra pennies of short-term profit. That's ---smurfing--- retarded.
Stupid or not, it's what they did. And hence why a lot of people won't buy single player games that require constant internet access. People can argue the semantics of it being single player or not, but a lot of people won't drop $60 for a game that you can't play unless the server is functional at the time that they want to play. Probably not enough people to make a difference for Blizzard to change anything though.
-
I've got a bit of experience with data centers and traffic and I'll say this, traffic does not always behave the way you anticipate it to. There are also budgetary factors at play here and I've been down that road too. What is experienced on a launch day of a hot game posses similarities to a DDoS. I've been on the ground in data centers when events like this occur and it's a fun/terrifying experience.
They had preorders and sales projections to gauge what the server demand would be during the launch week. Nobody preorders a game or buys it on launch day only to put it in a drawer and play it a month later. Especially a game with the feverish anticipation of something like the Diablo franchise. And there were no budgetary factors at play (or at least there should not have been). We're talking about a game that will make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for Blizzard/Activision. Hundreds of millions. You build out the appropriate server capacity for a game like that. And to deliberately fail to do so because you know that after the launch-week server demand will be dramatically lower would be a terrible business decision. Look at all the bad will and negative press this has generated. You meet launch week demand and then repurpose excess server capacity later on. You don't leave millions of users unable to play their new game so you can squeeze out a few extra pennies of short-term profit. That's ---smurfing--- retarded.
I couldn't agree with you more. World of Warcraft had the same problem every single time a new patch was released. Blizzard just doesn't care, because it's not profitable to have bad ass servers to accommodate everyone for two days when they can just have average servers that handle the traffic when the hype dies down.
I played my Diablo 3 character up to level 5 and I turned it off out of boredom. Is the entire game just pointing your mouse at something and smashing the button until it dies? Once in a while, I would tap the right mouse button for a slight change of pace, but it didn't seem to be necessary. Am I missing something? Does it get better? Is this how the previous versions of the game worked?
-
Is the entire game just pointing your mouse at something and smashing the button until it dies? Once in a while, I would tap the right mouse button for a slight change of pace, but it didn't seem to be necessary. Am I missing something? Does it get better? Is this how the previous versions of the game worked?
That's exactly how the previous games were. I haven't played D3, but in D2, you would get new skills, spells, etc. Eventually you would rely on that a lot more than simply bashing things to death. I think you can also just hold the mouse button on the enemy down instead of repeatedly clicking. Save you some finger cramps.
-
Stupid or not, it's what they did.
Right, clearly. I'm just pointing out that there's no excuse for it.
Yeah, yeah, a couple of them got sanctimonious about the server connection and I'll never give them a dime and blah blah blah but it's, c'mon, Diablo 3.
I think you're seriously overestimating brand power. Where is Lara Croft or Wolfenstein or Doom today? Where's Sonic the Hedgehog? It is not at all uncommon for once-great brands and entire studios to fall from grace in this industry. Major bungles like this matter. And to have all this server outage right in the midst of an already loud debate about the legitimacy of requiring an always-on connection to the server for a single-player game . . . it does real damage to the company's name and reputation.
Hell . . . you say yourself, "C'mon . . . it's Diablo 3." Look what you're doing there! That statement isn't based on having played the game. It isn't based on reviews of Diablo 3. Based solely on name-recognition, you consider the game a no-brainer must-buy. Think for a second how incredibly ---smurfing--- valuable that kind of currency is. You don't ---fudgesicle--- with something like that to save a few bucks on servers. And don't tell me, "It's Diablo . . . it's name is invincible," cos the same could easily have been said of those other brands I listed above, and many others that have fallen into relative obscurity.
-
Here's another reason that playing a single player game that requires internet access blows:
Diablo III accounts are being hacked
May. 21, 2012 (3:28 pm) By: Matthew Humphries
Anyone who picked up Diablo III at launch has no doubt suffered a lot of frustration when trying to play the game. The mere mention of “Error 33″ will make many wince. But it seems there’s a new threat to advancing your character through the game: accounts are being hacked.
Over the weekend a growing number of reports were logged of accounts being hacked. In each case the legitimate user loses control of their login and friends find themselves talking to a complete stranger. They usually turn out to be someone who has purchased the account and is now playing in their place. Or at least, that’s what is being said during a chat session. It could actually be the hacker using the account and making up an excuse to distance themselves from the hijacking.
It’s unclear why this is able to happen, but it seems to be occurring regardless of whether your account is protected by one of Blizzard’s authenticators or not. That suggests the hackers are somehow hijacking active sessions, which would bypass the need to recheck security on that account.
For the affected gamer it’s a case of contacting Blizzard and waiting for your account to be rolled back to a pre-hacked state. That inevitably leads to some progress being lost. The hacker/s is also taking the opportunity to steal gold and items, of course.
Apparently Blizzard took the European servers offline on Sunday for 4 hours following many of these reports. It could be the downtime was related and they have patched the hole. But be aware that even with Blizzard’s requirement for a constant Internet connection, your account is vulnerable to attack.
-
I've got a bit of experience with data centers and traffic and I'll say this, traffic does not always behave the way you anticipate it to. There are also budgetary factors at play here and I've been down that road too. What is experienced on a launch day of a hot game posses similarities to a DDoS. I've been on the ground in data centers when events like this occur and it's a fun/terrifying experience.
They had preorders and sales projections to gauge what the server demand would be during the launch week. Nobody preorders a game or buys it on launch day only to put it in a drawer and play it a month later. Especially a game with the feverish anticipation of something like the Diablo franchise. And there were no budgetary factors at play (or at least there should not have been). We're talking about a game that will make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for Blizzard/Activision. Hundreds of millions. You build out the appropriate server capacity for a game like that. And to deliberately fail to do so because you know that after the launch-week server demand will be dramatically lower would be a terrible business decision. Look at all the bad will and negative press this has generated. You meet launch week demand and then repurpose excess server capacity later on. You don't leave millions of users unable to play their new game so you can squeeze out a few extra pennies of short-term profit. That's ---smurfing--- retarded.
There is a large disconnect between what should be built and what is actually built. I've been in a many situations where you have millions of dollars in equipment falling out of support by years end and the CIO/COO only wants to spend 1/3 of what you actually need. In the end there shouldn't be an excuse, you're right, but stuff happens, and I've engineered enough DC's and seen enough DDoS's to not let it bug me anymore. Also, it depends on how they build their infrastructure, but reusing a component isn't 1 for 1. I've found 60% of what you deploy for a large "hit" can be redeployed after traffic begins to shape as expected. Servers can also be some of the cheapest components in said DC's (depending on design, Pizza box vs blades vs BYO). The big kicker for someone like Blizzard will be in Load balancers/traffic shapers and IDS/IPS whose licenses can't be reused and are expensive as hell licensing wise.
With that said I get just as infuriated as the guy next to me when I can't play right when I want to, but I accepted long ago that Diablo 3 was an online only game and i can deal with it now. I tried to play this morning for a few minutes before heading to work and the servers were down for 8 hours. I was upset.
Here's another reason that playing a single player game that requires internet access blows:
Diablo III accounts are being hacked
May. 21, 2012 (3:28 pm) By: Matthew Humphries
Anyone who picked up Diablo III at launch has no doubt suffered a lot of frustration when trying to play the game. The mere mention of “Error 33″ will make many wince. But it seems there’s a new threat to advancing your character through the game: accounts are being hacked.
Over the weekend a growing number of reports were logged of accounts being hacked. In each case the legitimate user loses control of their login and friends find themselves talking to a complete stranger. They usually turn out to be someone who has purchased the account and is now playing in their place. Or at least, that’s what is being said during a chat session. It could actually be the hacker using the account and making up an excuse to distance themselves from the hijacking.
It’s unclear why this is able to happen, but it seems to be occurring regardless of whether your account is protected by one of Blizzard’s authenticators or not. That suggests the hackers are somehow hijacking active sessions, which would bypass the need to recheck security on that account.
For the affected gamer it’s a case of contacting Blizzard and waiting for your account to be rolled back to a pre-hacked state. That inevitably leads to some progress being lost. The hacker/s is also taking the opportunity to steal gold and items, of course.
Apparently Blizzard took the European servers offline on Sunday for 4 hours following many of these reports. It could be the downtime was related and they have patched the hole. But be aware that even with Blizzard’s requirement for a constant Internet connection, your account is vulnerable to attack.
I saw this on the Subreddit of Diablo yesterday and it's very interesting to me. Users with Authenticators or token based two factor authentication have really only two ways to be compromised. The first is a MITM intercepts their token and then relay's that to blizzard on their behalf. The issue with this is that such a large number of people have been hacked, it makes me feel like perhaps a login server has been compromised on Blizzards side and is working for said hackers. The second way, which is far scarier to me, is if the seed database was compromised (this is what happened with RSA). At that point they have the capability to generate said tokens at will with the seed numbers and the date/time stamp of current.
Either way you look at it, hackers are building their armada of items so when the RMAH goes live they can flood the market with equipment/gold and make lots of money.
-
but I accepted long ago that Diablo 3 was an online only game and i can deal with it now. I tried to play this morning for a few minutes before heading to work and the servers were down for 8 hours. I was upset.
It's so funny that the only person managing to convince me that it's unacceptable to have an online requirement for a single-player game is the guy advocating for the online requirement. This is NOT okay. If they can't make the thing work, they have no business putting it on the market. They're gonna end up with a class action for breach of warranty on their hands. All the stuff I said earlier about online checks being transparent seems to be completely without merit.
-
Playing Titan Quest for the last week or two has reminded me that hack & loot gameplay just doesn't do it for me anymore.
-
but I accepted long ago that Diablo 3 was an online only game and i can deal with it now. I tried to play this morning for a few minutes before heading to work and the servers were down for 8 hours. I was upset.
It's so funny that the only person managing to convince me that it's unacceptable to have an online requirement for a single-player game is the guy advocating for the online requirement. This is NOT okay. If they can't make the thing work, they have no business putting it on the market. They're gonna end up with a class action for breach of warranty on their hands. All the stuff I said earlier about online checks being transparent seems to be completely without merit.
Even the biggest data centers need maintenance. Stuff gets taken down all the time. Sometimes you need a hard reboot too if the code just doesn't do what it's supposed to or is written poorly. If it's truly deemed not able to be taken down, the code is then built to make it fully resilient. The problem usually encountered however, is that resiliency of that level requires a chunk of capital that executives can never seem to wrap their heads around. In the end it's a risk vs reward thing that has clearly paid off for them and all other MMO's. People get pissed, but eight hours later when they're playing the game again they seem to forget their gripes until they get bored of the game.
This isn't a hospital, or someones life we're talking about here, it's a game. It's a game with a clearly defined online component. They didn't slip it under the covers, they told you about it before you bought it. Maintenance is a given. It sucks, but it's the way it goes. Hospitals have multiple levels of resiliency because they have regulations to adhere to and people's lives where when handled improperly, can provoke legal action. There are no laws or regulations on MMO's. Only laws in general terms of providing services. If you read the TOS, you'll see they don't provide a figure for how much up time you should expect. So if you feel that 20 hours of downtime over the course of a month breaches the contract of service they provided you by all means take them to court. I'm pretty sure you won't get a judge anywhere to give you a judgement.
-
Terms of service are irrelevant. You can't EULA your way around statutory rights (Uniform Commercial Code). When you put a product on the market it comes, by law, with a warranty of merchantability requiring, among other things, that the goods reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer's expectations. It's silly to speak of "even the biggest data centers need maintenance." This isn't maintenance. It's failing to provide proper capacity. And contrary to what you said, this is nothing like a DDoS attack. DDoS traffic is unanticipated. Diablo 3 is a game made by the company with more experience than any other company in the world in MMO games. Their sales predictions weren't off (and preorders can't be off). Plus, it was extensively beta tested. They can't argue they were caught with their pants down. You said yourself that servers to handle the level of traffic generated by Diablo 3 requires, " . . . a chunk of capital that exectives can never seem to wrap their heads around . . . it's a risk vs reward thing that has clearly paid off for them . . . ." In other words, they simply cut a corner to make more money and in the process they shipped a literally defective product. That's not something you can put in a TOS.
-
IF DIABLO 3 WERE A GIRL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I43GUnZN_s4#ws)
-
(http://chainsawsuit.com/comics/20120521.png)
yet I still love it. Beat normal on saturday, almost done nightmare. The drops are getting epic. PIcked up a 3 sockets armor last night, weut!
-
Epic.
-
(http://chainsawsuit.com/comics/20120521.png)
yet I still love it. Beat normal on saturday, almost done nightmare. The drops are getting epic. PIcked up a 3 sockets armor last night, weut!
Yeah, it can certainly be repetitive. I beat Nightmare last night and it's getting tougher each time as a wizard. Not looking forward to every mob having the ability to one shot me. The difficulty isn't scaling as nicely as I would have hoped after all their talk.
Terms of service are irrelevant. You can't EULA your way around statutory rights (Uniform Commercial Code). When you put a product on the market it comes, by law, with a warranty of merchantability requiring, among other things, that the goods reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer's expectations. It's silly to speak of "even the biggest data centers need maintenance." This isn't maintenance. It's failing to provide proper capacity. And contrary to what you said, this is nothing like a DDoS attack. DDoS traffic is unanticipated. Diablo 3 is a game made by the company with more experience than any other company in the world in MMO games. Their sales predictions weren't off (and preorders can't be off). Plus, it was extensively beta tested. They can't argue they were caught with their pants down. You said yourself that servers to handle the level of traffic generated by Diablo 3 requires, " . . . a chunk of capital that exectives can never seem to wrap their heads around . . . it's a risk vs reward thing that has clearly paid off for them . . . ." In other words, they simply cut a corner to make more money and in the process they shipped a literally defective product. That's not something you can put in a TOS.
I get your point, but you won't ever get a judge to agree with you and you'd never get into a Blizzard data center to prove they didn't spec out properly. The wave of a DDoS is identical to the wave of players connecting to a new MMO. You're right that they should have planned for it and that a DDoS would be unanticipated but what I'm telling you is that in my network chair, the traffic looks the same.
Either way the games fun, good coop fun and MWO started closed beta yesterday, so I'm hoping to get an invite to that soon.
-
I get your point, but you won't ever get a judge to agree with you and you'd never get into a Blizzard data center to prove they didn't spec out properly.
You'd never get a judge to agree with you about what? And why? Are judges being bribed by videogame publishers? Are they rabid Diablo/WoW fans? That statement makes no sense. The only thing the judge has to agree on is that there is a legitimate breach of warranty claim, which there obviously is (not that Activision breached it's implied warranty, but merely that they might have--that the claim has merit, that it isn't frivolous). The judge doesn't decide the outcome of the case before there's even been a trial. Once the case goes forward, the jury decides whether there was any malfeasance on Blizzard/Activision's part.
As for "getting into a Blizzard data center", of course you'd get into it. All that data, as well as corporate emails, etc., would be provided as a matter of course during the discovery/disclosure phase of the trial. Moreover, Blizzard employees would have to testify in the case.
-
I get your point, but you won't ever get a judge to agree with you and you'd never get into a Blizzard data center to prove they didn't spec out properly.
You'd never get a judge to agree with you about what? And why? Are judges being bribed by videogame publishers? Are they rabid Diablo/WoW fans? That statement makes no sense. The only thing the judge has to agree on is that there is a legitimate breach of warranty claim, which there obviously is (not that Activision breached it's implied warranty, but merely that they might have--that the claim has merit, that it isn't frivolous). The judge doesn't decide the outcome of the case before there's even been a trial. Once the case goes forward, the jury decides whether there was any malfeasance on Blizzard/Activision's part.
As for "getting into a Blizzard data center", of course you'd get into it. All that data, as well as corporate emails, etc., would be provided as a matter of course during the discovery/disclosure phase of the trial. Moreover, Blizzard employees would have to testify in the case.
So why haven't we seen cases then against UO/EQ/WOW for this "Obvious" breach of warranty claim? Where are the cases and what were there outcomes? EQ has been doing your exact definition of "breach of warranty" since 1998 and I can't recall a single court case against it. If it were that obvious I'd think there would be loads of cases and class action lawsuits and lots of settlements right?
My judge comment deals more towards the idea that in your mind your case is bullet proof and yet in the court of law a judge may side against you because he/she doesn't see it the same way. There have been many court cases where people felt confident only to be blown away by the decision in the end. The law is not as cut and dry as it appears.
-
I don't think I suggested that the case was bullet proof. I simply said that Blizzard was going to end up with a class action on its hands. And I'm confident that if one were filed, the judge would certify it, though I'm not a contract or consumer protection lawyer, so I'm open to the possibility that there's something I don't know about that would bar such a case. Whether Blizzard would win a suit against it would depend on what facts came to light in the course of the trial. I suspect (as do you, frankly) that executives deliberately shipped a product that doesn't work properly because they knew that people would grumble and then after a while the initial demand would die down and the problem would sort itself out, and all the consumers would more-or-less forget about it. If this is the case, I think the plaintiffs would have a very good chance of winning (or more likely Activision would settle). Of course, it may not be the case. In which case, Blizzard would argue its case and likely win.
There have been many court cases where people felt confident only to be blown away by the decision in the end. The law is not as cut and dry as it appears.
But this concept somehow doesn't apply to the scenario of Activision/Blizzard feeling confident only to be blown away by the decision in the end? On what, exactly, are you basing your belief that Blizzard's legal case is bulletproof?
I don't think that the law is, or even particularly appears to be, cut and dried. I've spent a little time on the subject. I think it's fairly complex.
-
schmokes, at least tell me I'm more fun to argue with than this guy.
Also, I beat it on Nightmare already too and its still not that difficult. It is getting slightly harder to mob control as a barbarian though, might have to switch to a dual wield twirlie build, but I love smackin the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of stuff and stunning it.
-
I unlocked the most overpowered ability I've ever seen with my mage last night, transforming into an Archon. I found out later that it's overpowered because of a bug since it's only supposed to last 15 seconds. It was lasting 60 seconds for me which essentially meant I was an unstoppable killing machine for 60 seconds. I unlocked the ability shortly before getting to the end of Act III where you fight a giant boss, with this ability I beat him in about 45 seconds without even trying. While in Archon form, you do 10x your normal damage, so all I had to do was shoot the boss with the beam and watch his health bar drop, it's just so absurdly overpowered.
-
I don't think I suggested that the case was bullet proof. I simply said that Blizzard was going to end up with a class action on its hands. And I'm confident that if one were filed, the judge would certify it, though I'm not a contract or consumer protection lawyer, so I'm open to the possibility that there's something I don't know about that would bar such a case. Whether Blizzard would win a suit against it would depend on what facts came to light in the course of the trial. I suspect (as do you, frankly) that executives deliberately shipped a product that doesn't work properly because they knew that people would grumble and then after a while the initial demand would die down and the problem would sort itself out, and all the consumers would more-or-less forget about it. If this is the case, I think the plaintiffs would have a very good chance of winning (or more likely Activision would settle). Of course, it may not be the case. In which case, Blizzard would argue its case and likely win.
There have been many court cases where people felt confident only to be blown away by the decision in the end. The law is not as cut and dry as it appears.
But this concept somehow doesn't apply to the scenario of Activision/Blizzard feeling confident only to be blown away by the decision in the end? On what, exactly, are you basing your belief that Blizzard's legal case is bulletproof?
I don't think that the law is, or even particularly appears to be, cut and dried. I've spent a little time on the subject. I think it's fairly complex.
I get everything your saying I just have a problem believing it's actually winnable in court if after 14 years of MMO's stomping all over us no one's taken them to court for a pay day.
schmokes, at least tell me I'm more fun to argue with than this guy.
???
I unlocked the most overpowered ability I've ever seen with my mage last night, transforming into an Archon. I found out later that it's overpowered because of a bug since it's only supposed to last 15 seconds. It was lasting 60 seconds for me which essentially meant I was an unstoppable killing machine for 60 seconds. I unlocked the ability shortly before getting to the end of Act III where you fight a giant boss, with this ability I beat him in about 45 seconds without even trying. While in Archon form, you do 10x your normal damage, so all I had to do was shoot the boss with the beam and watch his health bar drop, it's just so absurdly overpowered.
Archon is . . . not . . . that good. In NM a little bit and in Hell/Inferno if you roll Archon you'll be getting 1 hit KO'd by trash mobs. Archon is a fun/useless skill in anything besides Normal. Boss at the end of Act III (Azmodan) is the easiest boss in the game.
-
I unlocked the most overpowered ability I've ever seen with my mage last night, transforming into an Archon. I found out later that it's overpowered because of a bug since it's only supposed to last 15 seconds. It was lasting 60 seconds for me which essentially meant I was an unstoppable killing machine for 60 seconds. I unlocked the ability shortly before getting to the end of Act III where you fight a giant boss, with this ability I beat him in about 45 seconds without even trying. While in Archon form, you do 10x your normal damage, so all I had to do was shoot the boss with the beam and watch his health bar drop, it's just so absurdly overpowered.
Archon is . . . not . . . that good. In NM a little bit and in Hell/Inferno if you roll Archon you'll be getting 1 hit KO'd by trash mobs. Archon is a fun/useless skill in anything besides Normal. Boss at the end of Act III (Azmodan) is the easiest boss in the game.
I did get destroyed by Diablo when I tried to use Archon against him, but only because he has that cage attack, and I have no idea how it is on the harder difficulties. All I do know is that on normal difficulty, after I got that ability, there was zero challenge until I reached Diablo. Anytime I'd reach a decent sized mob or one of the "special" versions of the monster, all I had to do was go Archon and they are all dead nearly instantly, then I'd wander for the rest of the minute destroying anything in my path. The Act III boss may be weak, but even so I shouldn't be able to stand in one place, use one of my abilities and still win in under a minute. :dunno
On a side note, before I beat the game I thought I would want to play through it over and over again like I did the previous Diablo games, but after beating it I now have no interest in doing so. Not sure why since I did enjoy the game.
-
barely beat the butcher on hell, actually needed help from a friend to do it. Mobs are getting insanely tough, especially the blue/gold ones. I would have liked to play today, solo, but I cant play single player cause the servers are down. :/
-
barely beat the butcher on hell, actually needed help from a friend to do it. Mobs are getting insanely tough, especially the blue/gold ones. I would have liked to play today, solo, but I cant play single player cause the servers are down. :/
I know its killing me, I just got into hell mode and the servers went down. I got a small taste of it though. I definitely need some more DPS!
-
I did get destroyed by Diablo when I tried to use Archon against him, but only because he has that cage attack, and I have no idea how it is on the harder difficulties. All I do know is that on normal difficulty, after I got that ability, there was zero challenge until I reached Diablo. Anytime I'd reach a decent sized mob or one of the "special" versions of the monster, all I had to do was go Archon and they are all dead nearly instantly, then I'd wander for the rest of the minute destroying anything in my path. The Act III boss may be weak, but even so I shouldn't be able to stand in one place, use one of my abilities and still win in under a minute. :dunno
On a side note, before I beat the game I thought I would want to play through it over and over again like I did the previous Diablo games, but after beating it I now have no interest in doing so. Not sure why since I did enjoy the game.
Archon makes you even weaker than you were. So if you're a DPS wizard rocking Glass cannon and you turn to Archon you'll be feeling the pain. I was able to play through Normal, NM, hell and get into Inferno and then it was boring. Too much grinding too fast with not enough variation. I'll probably come back to it but I just got into two games Beta's super early and I'm pretty sure there goes all of my time lol.
barely beat the butcher on hell, actually needed help from a friend to do it. Mobs are getting insanely tough, especially the blue/gold ones. I would have liked to play today, solo, but I cant play single player cause the servers are down. :/
The butcher was tough on hell, but still doable for me (wizard) but Belail was impossible. Azmodan/Diablo were doable on Hell as well but I need space to use my abilities as a wizard and Belail's enclosed area was really hard on NM and almost impossible on Hell.
The blue/golds are hit or miss for me. If I get them in an open field even if they have jailer/waller/arcane/mortar/shield/illusion I can survive no problem. If they however have all of that and are in tight spaces, it can become an issue. It also depends on what abilities they have. In hell there's a gold ability where all the mobs around them can't die until the gold dies. My goodness good luck with that. Fighting that gold mob I felt like that barbarian dude who beat inferno solo, whose fight with Diablo lasted over an hour.
barely beat the butcher on hell, actually needed help from a friend to do it. Mobs are getting insanely tough, especially the blue/gold ones. I would have liked to play today, solo, but I cant play single player cause the servers are down. :/
I know its killing me, I just got into hell mode and the servers went down. I got a small taste of it though. I definitely need some more DPS!
I think DPS is hugely important but by the time you start rolling in Hell and after that inferno, you need to start focusing on DPS and resist gear. Mobs in Act IV Inferno do 500k damage to wizards, so you need resists and armor to survive after 1 hit. Even then you'll still run into mobs that 1 hit you. They wrote a blog post about how they are going to get rid of the 1 hitting crap but for right now it's still prevalent. So start building up your resist gear!
-
I did get destroyed by Diablo when I tried to use Archon against him, but only because he has that cage attack, and I have no idea how it is on the harder difficulties. All I do know is that on normal difficulty, after I got that ability, there was zero challenge until I reached Diablo. Anytime I'd reach a decent sized mob or one of the "special" versions of the monster, all I had to do was go Archon and they are all dead nearly instantly, then I'd wander for the rest of the minute destroying anything in my path. The Act III boss may be weak, but even so I shouldn't be able to stand in one place, use one of my abilities and still win in under a minute. :dunno
On a side note, before I beat the game I thought I would want to play through it over and over again like I did the previous Diablo games, but after beating it I now have no interest in doing so. Not sure why since I did enjoy the game.
Archon makes you even weaker than you were. So if you're a DPS wizard rocking Glass cannon and you turn to Archon you'll be feeling the pain. I was able to play through Normal, NM, hell and get into Inferno and then it was boring. Too much grinding too fast with not enough variation. I'll probably come back to it but I just got into two games Beta's super early and I'm pretty sure there goes all of my time lol.
I was a DPS wizard rocking glass cannon and I did so much more damage then with any of my other abilities. I don't see how 1000% dps from a constant attacking beam for a full minute can possibly be weak. Who knows, maybe part of the glitch is that I was doing 10000% damage, all I know is that enemies that would take 4-5 hits from my strongest attack were instantly vaporized when I went Archon. When I unlocked it, the game went from challenging to a joke.
-
I did get destroyed by Diablo when I tried to use Archon against him, but only because he has that cage attack, and I have no idea how it is on the harder difficulties. All I do know is that on normal difficulty, after I got that ability, there was zero challenge until I reached Diablo. Anytime I'd reach a decent sized mob or one of the "special" versions of the monster, all I had to do was go Archon and they are all dead nearly instantly, then I'd wander for the rest of the minute destroying anything in my path. The Act III boss may be weak, but even so I shouldn't be able to stand in one place, use one of my abilities and still win in under a minute. :dunno
On a side note, before I beat the game I thought I would want to play through it over and over again like I did the previous Diablo games, but after beating it I now have no interest in doing so. Not sure why since I did enjoy the game.
Archon makes you even weaker than you were. So if you're a DPS wizard rocking Glass cannon and you turn to Archon you'll be feeling the pain. I was able to play through Normal, NM, hell and get into Inferno and then it was boring. Too much grinding too fast with not enough variation. I'll probably come back to it but I just got into two games Beta's super early and I'm pretty sure there goes all of my time lol.
I was a DPS wizard rocking glass cannon and I did so much more damage then with any of my other abilities. I don't see how 1000% dps from a constant attacking beam for a full minute can possibly be weak. Who knows, maybe part of the glitch is that I was doing 10000% damage, all I know is that enemies that would take 4-5 hits from my strongest attack were instantly vaporized when I went Archon. When I unlocked it, the game went from challenging to a joke.
What's your current Damage and HP?
I'm also talking about NM/Hell/Inferno, not normal. In NM/Hell/Inferno mobs have exponentially more HP and do exponentially more damage.
-
What's your current Damage and HP?
I'm also talking about NM/Hell/Inferno, not normal. In NM/Hell/Inferno mobs have exponentially more HP and do exponentially more damage.
No idea, and as I said before, I'm only talking about normal.