Always-online Mythbuster

[Setch Dreskar]

This really depends on the country, though technically consumer rights were violated.

If you live in the UK you could file a claim under the Sale of Goods Act (I believe that's what it is called) which states the consumer has the right to have a functional, working product that they have paid for. You could say Blizzard making the game online only actually removes the functionality (If their servers ever go down at any time for any reason) and violates the SGA. Would it succeed though is another question but I am just saying you could view it as breaking consumer rights.

For the US I think it comes down to faulty products and you could try and get your money back for a product that is non-functioning especially since it is Blizzard's own fault that you cannot use the product you purchased. Though you can't say it was false advertisement, they said they would have this god awful DRM (That won't stop pirates anyways, and is completely pointless, but I suppose this new Blizzard has never heard of Diablo 2 where you couldn't bring a character from singleplayer.) from the start.

Honestly I would also say you have every right to crack and modify a product which you bought, Blizzard may have the right to deny you access to their online system, but you have the physical goods and can do with them what you please. Personally I would say return your copy of Diablo 3 and purchase a closed beta slot, or wait for Path of Exile to release (It will be free to play).

https://www.pathofexile.com/

 

[DingoDoom]

We're talking about a pretty small chance though. I mean, I could get hit by a car if some driver runs a red light, doesn't mean I'm not going to cross the street. (I know, I know, the analogy is far from perfect).

Personally I think my $60 is reasonably well spent. Could've been better, but I'm willing to play the game despite the (really small) risk of potentially having it disappear in a few years. If you aren't willing to pay the money for that small a potential risk, that's your decision. But to get back to the original point of our discussion, please don't go shouting that Blizzard is absolutely going to pull the plug on the servers after a few years. There's plenty of precedent to say that they won't, and absolutely no indication that they are going to change that policy. If there ARE indications of that ever happening, then by all means let us know, but until then don't spread unsubstantiated rumors.

Again, the chance is still there so Sandy's point still stands. You are handing your control over your game that you bought to the mercy of the company. So what if the online component has been kept online for 10+ years? Servers cannot be maintained forever and to think otherwise is wishful thinking. Even if it is unlikely, what if Blizzard shuts down? What is to guarantee that the next person who takes over doesn't shut down the servers?

So what if Blizzard shuts down D2 servers etc? I would have moved on to greener pastures but the people who wanted to play and old game can still enjoy D2 offline single-player without the online aspect. In the case for D3, I would have paid for a useless plastic disc.

Again this stems back to why always online is so stupid for a game. Unlike Sandy however, I play MMO's for fun, I have never spent a dime on a free to play MMO cash shop and which is also why I don't play guild wars, WoW, etc. because I have no control for the inevitable burn.

You may feel like you got your 60$ worth after say 6+ years of playing, but if and when the servers shut down, you will never be able to play again EVER because of the always online unlike the case of D2, magic cards, torchlight, halo 2 etc. because they still have OFFLINE components that function.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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"?

Sounds to me like Blizzard was just legitimizing what people were doing anyway and I fail to see a problem with that.

 

[Gennadios]

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.

This isn't 1998, the people complaining about the always online requirement were likely complaining because they've had prior experience. Rocky launches and servers going down for maintenance isn't exactly unheard of in this biz. People got sloppy and put Blizz up on a pedestal as some kind of online gaming overgods. There's no way a company that makes primarily multiplayer games can fuck this up, right?

Blizzard also gave plenty of warnings to expect connection problems in the opening days of launch. That alone would invalidate their earlier "assurance" and gave plenty of notice to cancel pre-orders.

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).

Then they're poor consumers, basing purchases on nostalgia instead of research. Certain aspects of Capitalism exist to prey on people like that. It's nothing new and by installing the game a EULA was signed. Blizzard didn't break any laws, consumers got bitten in the ass by their own carelessness.

 

[Tanakh]

Daiblo III is a business, not a game.

Almost all games are businesses. They're not spending millions of dollars developing and distributing this crap out of the goodness of their hearts.

Ha! Beat you to it you fishy guy.

 

[Nerexor]

We're talking about a pretty small chance though. I mean, I could get hit by a car if some driver runs a red light, doesn't mean I'm not going to cross the street. (I know, I know, the analogy is far from perfect).

Personally I think my $60 is reasonably well spent. Could've been better, but I'm willing to play the game despite the (really small) risk of potentially having it disappear in a few years. If you aren't willing to pay the money for that small a potential risk, that's your decision. But to get back to the original point of our discussion, please don't go shouting that Blizzard is absolutely going to pull the plug on the servers after a few years. There's plenty of precedent to say that they won't, and absolutely no indication that they are going to change that policy. If there ARE indications of that ever happening, then by all means let us know, but until then don't spread unsubstantiated rumors.

Again, the chance is still there so Sandy's point still stands. You are handing your control over your game that you bought to the mercy of the company. So what if the online component has been kept online for 10+ years? Servers cannot be maintained forever and to think otherwise is wishful thinking. Even if it is unlikely, what if Blizzard shuts down? What is to guarantee that the next person who takes over doesn't shut down the servers?

So what if Blizzard shuts down D2 servers etc? I would have moved on to greener pastures but the people who wanted to play and old game can still enjoy D2 offline single-player without the online aspect. In the case for D3, I would have paid for a useless plastic disc.

Again this stems back to why always online is so stupid for a game. Unlike Sandy however, I play MMO's for fun, I have never spent a dime on a free to play MMO cash shop and which is also why I don't play guild wars, WoW, etc. because I have no control for the inevitable burn.

You may feel like you got your 60$ worth after say 6+ years of playing, but if and when the servers shut down, you will never be able to play again EVER because of the always online unlike the case of D2, magic cards, torchlight, halo 2 etc. because they still have OFFLINE components that function.

For now they function, but keep in mind that numerous publishers don't continue to provide support for games. Hardware and software upgrades can also render offline games unplayable, or very difficult and/or expensive to continue playing. If my PS2 dies, all my PS2 games are suddenly unplayable until I shell out for a new system. Hell, I can't even play Bioshock because 2K games hasn't patched it to work with windows 7 (don't suggest fixes to me, I tried for days to get the damn thing running, I tried every suggestion on every forum I could find). My copy of Baldurs Gate 1 has also mysteriously stopped working over the years. Any product has a risk of deterioration or lack of functionality over time. Magic cards fall out of circulation and cease to be playable in tournament play, Halo 2 could run out of the screaming 12 year olds on xbox live to fuel it's dark energies and thus stop working (sorry, couldn't resist).

Would I be upset if D3 suddenly stopped working a few years down the line? Probably. I'd definitely be surprised, but shit happens. That said, it is far from ideal. I like to think that if the servers did go offline that Blizz would release a virtual server fix which would let the game act as single/multiplayer for friends or just a single player fix, but I can't predict that will happen any more than I can predict that BG1 would stop working or that 2K games will get off their butts and fix the Bioshock windows 7 issues.

Continued support is up to the developer/publisher/provider of the game. I feel secure in my purchase because Blizzard has a history of supporting their games a hell of a lot better than other publishers. If that turns out to be misplaced, I'll deal with it then.

 

[DingoDoom]

For now they function, but keep in mind that numerous publishers don't continue to provide support for games. Hardware and software upgrades can also render offline games unplayable, or very difficult and/or expensive to continue playing. If my PS2 dies, all my PS2 games are suddenly unplayable until I shell out for a new system. Hell, I can't even play Bioshock because 2K games hasn't patched it to work with windows 7 (don't suggest fixes to me, I tried for days to get the damn thing running, I tried every suggestion on every forum I could find). My copy of Baldurs Gate 1 has also mysteriously stopped working over the years. Any product has a risk of deterioration or lack of functionality over time. Magic cards fall out of circulation and cease to be playable in tournament play, Halo 2 could run out of the screaming 12 year olds on xbox live to fuel it's dark energies and thus stop working (sorry, couldn't resist).

Would I be upset if D3 suddenly stopped working a few years down the line? Probably. I'd definitely be surprised, but shit happens. That said, it is far from ideal. I like to think that if the servers did go offline that Blizz would release a virtual server fix which would let the game act as single/multiplayer for friends or just a single player fix, but I can't predict that will happen any more than I can predict that BG1 would stop working or that 2K games will get off their butts and fix the Bioshock windows 7 issues.

Continued support is up to the developer/publisher/provider of the game. I feel secure in my purchase because Blizzard has a history of supporting their games a hell of a lot better than other publishers. If that turns out to be misplaced, I'll deal with it then.

The problem you are having with older games and ps2 however, is hardware that YOU own and with hardware you own, you can upgrade and get fixes (obviously doesn't work all the time), but in the case of D3, there is no upgrade if the servers shut down. The argument that your ps2 game isn't working because your ps2 broke is not valid because you can get a replacement or fix. In D3, you cannot replace a server or your character data saved on that server.

Magic cards maybe outdated in modern tournaments but again, you can play with friends in your own set of rules. Again, the off chance that Blizz sets up a virtual server is wishful thinking, it may or may not happen. Like with all the other games you mentioned, they can still be played if you can get them to work, your problem is hardware not the software themselves. D3 is software failure as well as hardware. If the servers were to explode or something, just like an MMO, all your progress and data is gone FOREEVER because it is server sided (so far anyways). Backups or not, I still have no control over a product that I bought.

 

[Zom-B]

Blizzard has removed what is to many essential functionality that has been in not only past Diablo games, but most games that have been released in the past, period, namely, the ability to play without an internet connection. This means that many people are unable to enjoy the game the way that they want to or expect to, ie playing when the internet is down, in a place without an internet connection, or when Blizzard's servers are undergoing maintenance. And remember, just because this isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean that it isn't a serious issue for others.

This paragraph stands out for me mainly because it seems to excuse stupid and lazy consumers. It looks like you're saying customers should receive the benefit of the doubt simply because they're used to certain ways of doing things.

Personally, I have no sympathy for consumers who don't take the time to research their purchases. Every single person that bought Diablo 3 should have known that always online was a requirement, no questions, and that on the first day or two at least after release that the servers would be overloaded and that there'd probably be a couple bugs.

To anyone that blindly bought Diablo 3 I say: tough titty. You really should have know beforehand. Hell, I've never played any Diablo game and I was still aware of the online requirements for D3.

There really is no excuse in this day and age, especially when it comes to something like video games not to know what you're purchasing when you decide to buy a game. No excuse besides laziness and ignorance, that is.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

I think that's actually a pretty excellent point. I guess my counter-point would be that it's ludicrous to think that Blizzard doesn't have employees who either as a function of their job, or just on their own time, aren't aware of consumer sentiment via the numerous gaming websites and blogs where people are venting their frustrations about the industry.

I would have a hard time believing that most developers and publishers don't have at least one person who browses, at the very least, the major gaming sites- The Escapists, Kotakus, 1ups, Giant Bombs, Gamespots, etc. - reading article and forum comments. If they don't, they're missing out on a huge information reserve. If they do and they just ignore the data they acquire, they deserve failure when it happens.

 

[w00tage]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

To suggest that Blizzard Has a monopoly is like saying "ford has a monopoly on ford cars".

It is ridicules. There are plenty of alternatives. They have to compete on equal grounds with every other form of entertainment. To suggest "Diablo 3 is the only entertainment I can buy" is just dumb. You dont have to buy Diablo 3. It solves a single task of entertaining. It has to compete on the same lvl as all other forms of entertainment.

Secondly:
The market isn't a democracy. It doesn't sway to what most people like. It sways to what pays the most. I assure you that you would get the most people to love a game if it were free.

Umm, Ford and every other manufacturer have IP monopolies on anything they can get. Their core components (the internal combustion engine, etc.) have long gone into public domain, or they assuredly WOULD have IP monopolies on "Ford cars with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES - MUCH BETTER THAN STEAM ENGINES OR HARNESSED SQUIRRELS LIKE OUR COMPETITORS USE!!".

Blizzard has a monopoly on the IP for Diablo 3. That's a separate and distinct IP with its own characteristics that are sufficient to distinguish it from any other IP, or they could not have obtained IP rights on it. Your generalization about D3 competing with every other form of entertainment misses the entire point of allowing IP rights in the first place, which is to support the creation of improved products *which the consumer is intended to choose over the competition's products*. In effect, the point of IP is to support the creation of products for which there is no direct competition in an endless game of leapfrog, as that's viewed as the best way to promote progress.

tldr; Yes, Diablo 3 is intended to be a choice unlike any other choice. I don't like chocolate or coffee ice cream, so when the holder of the vanilla ice cream patent decides I need to have a webcam on when I eat it so they can watch me and record my reactions, I have every right to b*tch.

Secondly, the market isn't a democracy, it's an artifice intended to fulfill consumer needs by providing resources for providers. Its express purpose is to serve us consumers through the providers, and competition is how one provider's oversight or bad decision which blocks part of the market from getting what they need is overcome - a competitor can identify the missing element and produce an improved version.

Consumer choice is supposed to be served by the competitive mechanic, but the instant IP is granted, that's out of the picture. It's up to the monopoly to collect the information on the consumer needs they have not fulfilled, and frankly, monopolies don't have much incentive to do so. That's the only point I was trying to make - that these companies are not collecting the data which would have factored into their decision on forced-online mode.

 

[w00tage]

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

I don't know if you can call an IP holder a monopolist. It's not like there aren't other similar games out there that people can choose to give their money to. If Diablo tanks and Torchlight 2 rakes in cash hand over fist because of always online DRM, I don't think Blizzard's bean counters are going to be sitting in a circle derping and wondering what happened. If we can figure it out on this forum, I'm pretty sure they're aware of the issue.

Just said this in another reply, so I'll recap it quickly - the entire point of granting IP rights is to promote the creation of unique products for which there is no direct competition. It's intended to establish an endless game of leapfrog to promote the most rapid progress possible.

Because of this fact, you have to consider Diablo 3 to be a unique product, despite the number of theoretical competitors out there. They're theoretical because they cannot use the same IP as D3 to create consumer choices on a level playing field, i.e. do I play Blizzard's D3 or someone else's?

The test is if the product has a siloed market (not sure of the exact term, but you get the idea). Nobody playing D3 can play online with anyone else that doesn't have *Blizzard's* D3, so it passes the acid test for a monopolistic(?term) product. The fact that every other game company out there is doing the same thing only means that we don't have competition, we have competing monopolies. Although the rush to online DRM (Origin, etc.) proves that's the case anyways.


As for what game company management knows and doesn't know, that's kind of the point I was making - without asking me or anyone else "Will forced-online make you not buy our game?" it's impossible to see HOW they can know this. Don't put them on a pedestal because they work for a big company, they're no smarter than you or I (and considerably less knowledgable about why you and I buy or don't buy a game).

 

[w00tage]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

To suggest that Blizzard Has a monopoly is like saying "ford has a monopoly on ford cars".

It is ridicules. There are plenty of alternatives. They have to compete on equal grounds with every other form of entertainment. To suggest "Diablo 3 is the only entertainment I can buy" is just dumb. You dont have to buy Diablo 3. It solves a single task of entertaining. It has to compete on the same lvl as all other forms of entertainment.

Secondly:
The market isn't a democracy. It doesn't sway to what most people like. It sways to what pays the most. I assure you that you would get the most people to love a game if it were free.

Umm, Ford and every other manufacturer have IP monopolies on anything they can get. Their core components (the internal combustion engine, etc.) have long gone into public domain, or they assuredly WOULD have IP monopolies on "Ford cars with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES - MUCH BETTER THAN STEAM ENGINES OR HARNESSED SQUIRRELS LIKE OUR COMPETITORS USE!!".

Blizzard has a monopoly on the IP for Diablo 3. That's a separate and distinct IP with its own characteristics that are sufficient to distinguish it from any other IP, or they could not have obtained IP rights on it. Your generalization about D3 competing with every other form of entertainment misses the entire point of allowing IP rights in the first place, which is to support the creation of improved products *which the consumer is intended to choose over the competition's products*. In effect, the point of IP is to support the creation of products for which there is no direct competition in an endless game of leapfrog, as that's viewed as the best way to promote progress.

tldr; Yes, Diablo 3 is intended to be a choice unlike any other choice. I don't like chocolate or coffee ice cream, so when the holder of the vanilla ice cream patent decides I need to have a webcam on when I eat it so they can watch me and record my reactions, I have every right to b*tch.

Secondly, the market isn't a democracy, it's an artifice intended to fulfill consumer needs by providing resources for providers. Its express purpose is to serve us consumers through the providers, and competition is how one provider's oversight or bad decision which blocks part of the market from getting what they need is overcome - a competitor can identify the missing element and produce an improved version.

Consumer choice is supposed to be served by the competitive mechanic, but the instant IP is granted, that's out of the picture. It's up to the monopoly to collect the information on the consumer needs they have not fulfilled, and frankly, monopolies don't have much incentive to do so. That's the only point I was trying to make - that these companies are not collecting the data which would have factored into their decision on forced-online mode.

That is bogus.

Diablo 3 isn't an internal combustion engine. The genre in it self might be but they dont have control over that. Blizzard own their franchisee just like ford owns their own mark. Diablo 3 is nothing more than a name, not an actual technology.

I reject your false analogy.

... I reject your contention that my analogy is false, and also any arguments you may pose that don't include an actual understanding of the fact that IP is intended to create monopolies, which by definition exclude competition.

 

[newdarkcloud]

The problem I have with always-online DRM is that I still can't comprehend the logic behind it.

It pisses off consumers.
It causes tons of problems at launch.
It prevents consumers from using a product they legitimately own should their internet go down for awhile (or if they live on a college campus with shitty internet).
The effect it has on piracy is temporary at best.
You don't need it for the auction house.

There are several logical reasons why it would be a bad idea, which people pointed out to Blizzard. But they did it anyway.
I can't even blame this on Activision, because (as far as I know) they have never before used DRM schemes and stay functionally separate from Blizzard for the most part.

 

[newdarkcloud]

The problem I have with always-online DRM is that I still can't comprehend the logic behind it.

It pisses off consumers.
It causes tons of problems at launch.
It prevents consumers from using a product they legitimately own should their internet go down for awhile (or if they live on a college campus with shitty internet).
The effect it has on piracy is temporary at best.
You don't need it for the auction house.

There are several logical reasons why it would be a bad idea, which people pointed out to Blizzard. But they did it anyway.
I can't even blame this on Activision, because (as far as I know) they have never before used DRM schemes and stay functionally separate from Blizzard for the most part.

Well it is an attempt to establish a connection between games.

Think of when steam first came out, and how it wasn't much cept a crappy DRM. Now look at where they could take this online system. Ubi is trying the same thing with their Uplay. There is potential to add something by making everything part of it.

It is also about piracy, but piracy isn't the main goal. The main goal is to change games into an overall service. It has potential for good as well as bad.

Wait, doesn't Steam have an offline mode. Meaning that you don't need to be online to play your games.

I'm not against the prospect of having all of my games in one convenient list. But the end user really should be considered when making decisions like this. They are the ones that make/break a company in the end. A constant connection may not be asking for much, but not everyone has a stable internet connection. That reduces the number of people in your target audience, which is always a bad thing.

 

[w00tage]

-snip-

I made it about consumer rights because of how casually the guy I quoted threw it out there without any real understanding of what his rights were.

I still dont see how the DRM is a legitimate complaint. They didn't pull the rug under you like Guppy already pointed out. If it was a case of false advertisement and you expected to be able to play offline, then yeah. But that isn't the case. Their product their choice. It isn't our right to make them change it. It is however our right not to buy it.

Not to jump into the central arguments(s) but I just wanted to point out something that seems to be overlooked quite often.

There seems to be an assumption that "not buying a product" makes a statement to the producer that they can use to modify their behavior. This is not actually the case. If you don't buy Diablo3 because it requires an always-on connection (I won't fyi) then you simply drop off the radar as far as Blizzard is concerned. They will never know that they lost a potential customer because of this requirement.

This is imo a huge unaddressed issue with any industry that runs on monopolistic behavior (IP rights in this case). When you make a choice, you weigh pros and cons. When Blizzard made this choice, they had no way to weigh the cons (as represented by consumer concerns which would cost them sales), and there's no apple-to-apple competition to satisfy the market they failed to fulfill.

tldr; market forces don't work on monopolies unless the monopolist knows the reason(s) why someone didn't buy their product, and no game company seems to proactively ask that question.

To suggest that Blizzard Has a monopoly is like saying "ford has a monopoly on ford cars".

It is ridicules. There are plenty of alternatives. They have to compete on equal grounds with every other form of entertainment. To suggest "Diablo 3 is the only entertainment I can buy" is just dumb. You dont have to buy Diablo 3. It solves a single task of entertaining. It has to compete on the same lvl as all other forms of entertainment.

Secondly:
The market isn't a democracy. It doesn't sway to what most people like. It sways to what pays the most. I assure you that you would get the most people to love a game if it were free.

Umm, Ford and every other manufacturer have IP monopolies on anything they can get. Their core components (the internal combustion engine, etc.) have long gone into public domain, or they assuredly WOULD have IP monopolies on "Ford cars with INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES - MUCH BETTER THAN STEAM ENGINES OR HARNESSED SQUIRRELS LIKE OUR COMPETITORS USE!!".

Blizzard has a monopoly on the IP for Diablo 3. That's a separate and distinct IP with its own characteristics that are sufficient to distinguish it from any other IP, or they could not have obtained IP rights on it. Your generalization about D3 competing with every other form of entertainment misses the entire point of allowing IP rights in the first place, which is to support the creation of improved products *which the consumer is intended to choose over the competition's products*. In effect, the point of IP is to support the creation of products for which there is no direct competition in an endless game of leapfrog, as that's viewed as the best way to promote progress.

tldr; Yes, Diablo 3 is intended to be a choice unlike any other choice. I don't like chocolate or coffee ice cream, so when the holder of the vanilla ice cream patent decides I need to have a webcam on when I eat it so they can watch me and record my reactions, I have every right to b*tch.

Secondly, the market isn't a democracy, it's an artifice intended to fulfill consumer needs by providing resources for providers. Its express purpose is to serve us consumers through the providers, and competition is how one provider's oversight or bad decision which blocks part of the market from getting what they need is overcome - a competitor can identify the missing element and produce an improved version.

Consumer choice is supposed to be served by the competitive mechanic, but the instant IP is granted, that's out of the picture. It's up to the monopoly to collect the information on the consumer needs they have not fulfilled, and frankly, monopolies don't have much incentive to do so. That's the only point I was trying to make - that these companies are not collecting the data which would have factored into their decision on forced-online mode.

That is bogus.

Diablo 3 isn't an internal combustion engine. The genre in it self might be but they dont have control over that. Blizzard own their franchisee just like ford owns their own mark. Diablo 3 is nothing more than a name, not an actual technology.

I reject your false analogy.

... I reject your contention that my analogy is false, and also any arguments you may pose that don't include an actual understanding of the fact that IP is intended to create monopolies, which by definition exclude competition.

So by your definition anything with an IP has a monopoly?
I dont think that word means what you think it means.

So by your definition, any products that fit into the same-shaped market hole are competitors? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Edit: also yes, anything with an IP has a monopoly. I will stipulate that I disagree with granting IP all over the friggin' place for crap that doesn't matter, which has been the trend these past 20 years, but the fact is entertainment publishers have gotten hold of it, and every game publisher that has IP stands ready to sue over it.