Always-online Mythbuster

[allinwonder]

Myth 1. "You know it's a always online game. You have no right to blame Blizzard"

There are at least two things wrong with this statement. First, people are blaming because they CANNOT connect to the server, or are constantly kicked out of servers along with their character data. When people heard about always online, they complained. Blizzard assured them that the user experience will not be affected by always online requirement. They lied. Second, not all Diablo fans follow gaming news. Older gamers with families and jobs usually don't have time reading pre-release PR stuff. They used to be Diablo fans. They find out D3 is released, and they bought it. They expect the new game works in the same way as its predecessor (i.e. not an MMO).

Myth 2. "It has to be always online because of the real money auction house."

Wrong. In Diablo 2, you have Battle.net accounts and characters, and you have offline singleplayer/lan/private online game characters. You cannot mix them together, and Battle.net characters are not stored locally, so you cannot hack it. Blizzard basically takes the latter part away. And apologists like to say "When there is no in-game real money auction house, people trade items with real money outside of the game anyway.". They basically contradict themselves: if offline mode affects battle.net gameplay, then why there is "real money item trade outside of the game"?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A controversial title. Attack post. Poisoning the well. Assault on illusory antagonist. This thread has it all!

I'm sorry Diablo 3 is not the product for you. You seem well informed as to why it's not the product for you, so I recommend not buying it. If you already bought it, well, caveat emptor, and all that.

 

[allinwonder]

A controversial title. Attack post.

OK I soften it up.

Poisoning the well.

???

Assault on illusory antagonist.

Those are what some people really said. What's so "illusory" about that?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A controversial title. Attack post.

OK I soften it up.

Fair enough, although you're still just elucidating a phantom position and then attacking it.

Poisoning the well.

???

Poisoning the well is loading the argument so that anyone who disagrees with you is pre-emptively attacked. The term "Blizzard apologists" would be an example of poisoning the well.

Assault on illusory antagonist.

Those are what some people really said. What's so "illusory" about that?

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who stands up to defend an unprovoked attack on consumer rights? Industry apologist is the standard term at this point.

The OP is right, for the most part. I would say that the response to #1 is in part a strawman, but only because I'm one of the ones who used #1, and I used it to say that I'm annoyed at people who bought it knowing it was always online, because it means we'll have more of this crap in the future. Voting with you wallet works both ways, after all, and whether or not Blizzard lied about how it would affect the singleplayer experience is immaterial. Although I will say that there's already a history of always online singleplayer, and the problems I'm hearing about are nothing new. Has everyone forgotten Assassin's Creed II already?

 

[zombieshark6666]

It's an unnecessary restriction that gives me nothing. There's no reason to accept it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

and this is why I like you Guppy

Heh...you HATED me during the ME3 fiasco.

snip

Out of curiosity, what would you call someone who stands up to defend an unprovoked attack on consumer rights? Industry apologist is the standard term at this point.

The OP is right, for the most part. I would say that the response to #1 is in part a strawman, but only because I'm one of the ones who used #1, and I used it to say that I'm annoyed at people who bought it knowing it was always online, because it means we'll have more of this crap in the future. Voting with you wallet works both ways, after all, and whether or not Blizzard lied about how it would affect the singleplayer experience is immaterial. Although I will say that there's already a history of always online singleplayer, and the problems I'm hearing about are nothing new. Has everyone forgotten Assassin's Creed II already?

Regardless, if one starts out their thread blanket attacking an unseen group of people as "apologists", they are assuming an unnecessarily argumentative and poisonous position. We need to tone down the hyperbole, too. This isn't an 'attack on consumer rights'. It would be an attack if they changed their TOS after you'd already bought the game under the pretense it was offline. All they're doing is offering you a product that you're not interested in. Under no parameters should that be considered "an attack".

Yes, it does appear companies are forcing increasingly aggressive DRM on us in the form of online checks. Yes, I understand why people are upset about it. No, I'm not personally upset about it, because I have a stable internet connection and have had for many years. I'm perpetually online anyway, use Steam and have played MMOs since their inception, so this is ultimately shrug-inducing news for me, but I can appreciate why people are irked.

But Blizzard didn't jerk the rug out from under anyone's feet, here. We've known for QUITE some time that the game was going to be online. The box says internet connection required. If that's onerous, I get it, I do. I UNDERSTAND. But you can just...not buy it. And people can defend their right to do what they do without being 'industry apologists'. The ultimate test for any product is the market. If Diablo 3 tanks, then Blizzard will have learned a valuable and expensive lesson. However, I'm willing to bet a great majority of people really don't give a fig about always online, and will buy it anyway. That's APATHY, perhaps. But that's life. You're probably apathetic as hell about a great many things I care about. What's to be done about it?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

Well, you're buying a service. It's no different than buying WoW. You don't really "own" WoW the way you owned, say, Bard's Tale, back in the day. It's still not an attack on your rights in any capacity. We can talk about the shift in paradigm from games as a product to games as a service and the potential pitfalls that come along with that, but I don't really see how it's anti-consumer. When I go to a nightclub and pay a cover fee, I don't expect that I've bought the nightclub.

I can see why some people feel that they'd prefer games were something they OWNED and not something they RENTED or paid a service fee to access. That's understandable. But no one is obligated to provide you with a product that you want to buy. If there's sufficient demand out there for DRM free games, companies will rush to fill it. CD Projekt is already on the case, and they've put out a couple of excellent games and run the commendable GOG.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

But I said renting because that is a service you pay for, but dont get to own.

You very words were "The right to own what you pay for" so that is what I said.

Unless there isn't a "The right to own what you pay for" in consumer rights, then renting goes against your consumer rights. As a matter a fact Services in general goes against your consumer rights if this is an actual right.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Alright, I'll go there: "the right to own what you pay for when said payment is termed a purchase, and the right to not have additional terms tacked on after the contract of sale has been completed." That legalistic enough for you?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Question for clarification.

What consumer right is being attacked?

I hear it said alot, but what right is it precisely that they are attacking?

I am pretty sure "being offline" is not a consumer right.

The right to own what you pay for, the right to re-sell your own property. Unless Blizzard has this set up so that the game can be linked to more than one Battle.net account, in which case it's not a direct attack on consumer rights, but it's still an anti-consumer practice.

The right to own what you pay for....

so renting breaks your consumer rights?

It does if you walk into a store, the clerk sells you the item, and when you open it a piece of paper falls out that says you were actually renting it. You can't add something to a contract of sale after it's been completed, especially not unilaterally the way EULAs do.

But I said renting because that is a service you pay for, but dont get to own.

You very words were "The right to own what you pay for" so that is what I said.

Unless there isn't a "The right to own what you pay for" in consumer rights, then renting goes against your consumer rights. As a matter a fact Services in general goes against your consumer rights if this is an actual right.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Alright, I'll go there: "the right to own what you pay for when said payment is termed a purchase, and the right to not have additional terms tacked on after the contract of sale has been completed." That legalistic enough for you?

So what additional terms were added post purchase?

As far as I know it said right there on the box what the requirements were.

Was the entire text of the EULA there? or was there just a piece of fine print that said "online connection required?" Because if that entire EULA wasn't there, I can guarantee you there were additional terms that the buyer would not have been aware of prior to purchase.

 

[Bostur]

I'm sure some people, at some time, did say something like that. You need to address those people at that time though, and quote them directly. Otherwise you're just paraphrasing their position, and creating an illusory antagonist that you can project your arguments onto. You're not arguing with individuals. You're just tilting at windmills. At best you're baiting a thread hoping someone with that perspective will come in so you can yell at them.

If hundreds of people use the same argument at the same moment, it's impractical to adress them all individually. That can make it necessary to use a generalized counter-argument.

Blizzard used several flawed arguments in defense of their online system in D3, and other people have now started copying those arguments. The two counter arguments by allinwonder is a good way to adress this. It's hard to argue directly with a company like Blizzard, because in general they won't comment.

Well, you're buying a service. It's no different than buying WoW. You don't really "own" WoW the way you owned, say, Bard's Tale, back in the day. It's still not an attack on your rights in any capacity. We can talk about the shift in paradigm from games as a product to games as a service and the potential pitfalls that come along with that, but I don't really see how it's anti-consumer. When I go to a nightclub and pay a cover fee, I don't expect that I've bought the nightclub.

If I go to a store and buy a box, I usually own the contents of that box. In the case of contract terms it's usually expected that both parties get to read the contract before making an agreement.

I can see why some people feel that they'd prefer games were something they OWNED and not something they RENTED or paid a service fee to access. That's understandable. But no one is obligated to provide you with a product that you want to buy. If there's sufficient demand out there for DRM free games, companies will rush to fill it. CD Projekt is already on the case, and they've put out a couple of excellent games and run the commendable GOG.

True but if the market moves in a direction that many consumers dislike, I think it makes sense to communicate that feeling. Otherwise how would companies notice that there is sufficent demand for other types of product.