I'd offer to lend Blizzard a shovel with which to dig their own grave, but they make enough money to buy a shovel made of titanium alloy for each of their employees.
Wicky_42 said:I'd love to just go and play some SC2 skirmishes now to relax, but I can't cos my internet's acting up AND I NEED TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY BY MY SELF.
/still confused why this was ever considered to be a good idea.
(facepalm)Andy Chalk said:But that's not actually the case, according to Blizzard (and also the dictates of common sense), which put up a message [http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149619846] earlier this morning stating that while it takes security issues seriously, the rate of complaints isn't actually any worse than than of its other online game.
Because we all know how hack-free the oh-so-sacredly-singleplayer Diablo II was right?Callate said:(facepalm)
Okay, I'll bite with the obvious question- how does it compare with the rate of complaints on the non-online games, like Diablo 3 could have been if it hadn't been created with this new paradigm in mind?
This is kind of like saying "We find the rate of theft in your home to be very similar to the rate of theft in other homes in which we've installed maintenance/utility doors against the homeowner's desires."
Of course it wasn't. But Diablo II was also possible to play both multi-player and single-player without having to log into Battle.net. Battle.net accounts having become both inseparable from the game and far more valuable than they were in the era of DII, it would seem to behoove Blizzard to have put more effort into securing the now compulsory service.Aeshi said:Because we all know how hack-free the oh-so-sacredly-singleplayer Diablo II was right?Callate said:(facepalm)
Okay, I'll bite with the obvious question- how does it compare with the rate of complaints on the non-online games, like Diablo 3 could have been if it hadn't been created with this new paradigm in mind?
This is kind of like saying "We find the rate of theft in your home to be very similar to the rate of theft in other homes in which we've installed maintenance/utility doors against the homeowner's desires."
Packet sniffing and DRM are two completely different things. DRM is an attempt to keep the software pirates from playing the game without paying for it. What this is here is basically spoofing and packet sniffing. This allows hackers to discover account authorization information from the data stream in order to gain access to a person's account. Blizzard needs to improve their data encryption to keep hackers from getting the account information from the data packets.matrix3509 said:Wasn't this the very thing that the DRM was supposed to protect us from? Oh right, its supposed to protect Blizzard's bottom line, and the customers can go fuck themselves.
Seriously fuck you Blizzard.
You say they are effective but you haven't said that accounts can't get hacked with the Authenticators, but you instead say they are "effective measures"? That leads me to believe that Blizzard knew that the accounts, even WITH the Authenticators, would still have the probability of getting attacked. Even if they say the chance is less it's still not a concrete system and can be bypassed with the same persistence as when bypassing DRM... I guess.Andy Chalk said:Responding to claims that even accounts using authenticators are being hacked, Blizzard added that "the Battle.net Authenticator and Battle.net Mobile Authenticator (a free app for iPhone and Android devices) continue to be some of the most effective measures we offer to help players protect themselves against account compromises." The studio encouraged all Battle.net users to use authenticators, and also made mention of the new "Battle.net SMS Protect" system, which allows users to monitor and maintain their accounts via text message.
Ok, NOW they admit it. I guess that's a step forward... in a way. I would still like to have an Authenticator, but all this shit is still on Blizz's head.Andy Chalk said:"We've been taking the situation extremely seriously from the start, and have done everything possible to verify how and in what circumstances these compromises are occurring. Despite the claims and theories being made, we have yet to find any situations in which a person's account was not compromised through traditional means of someone else logging into their account through the use of their password," he said in the first post [http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5149619846?page=29#571]. "While the authenticator isn't a 100% guarantee of account security, we have yet to investigate a compromise report in which an authenticator was attached beforehand."
Go and see how many custom games you can launch from an offline SC2. Last time I tried the only thing I seemed to be able to do was to play the campaign, and it said some bullshit about not saving progress. Yay for offline mode, am I right? I remember being able to launch some custom maps by selecting the actual file and executing it with SC2, but the program itself is very hostile to offline play.Mathak said:Wicky_42 said:I'd love to just go and play some SC2 skirmishes now to relax, but I can't cos my internet's acting up AND I NEED TO BE ONLINE TO PLAY BY MY SELF.
/still confused why this was ever considered to be a good idea.
Except SC2 has an off-line mode. I get everyone hates Blizz, but do try not to complain about non-existing problems.
except hacks were a common occuance in D2PercyBoleyn said:That's not a fucking excuse. This wouldn't have happened if the game wasn't always online, especially since this particular instance of hacking is entirely Blizzard's fault.