I think people are looking at the Diablo 3 DRM from the wrong angle.

[newdarkcloud]

People keep talking about how the DRM and the server issues affect the consumer. These are legitimate grievances that should be addressed and I feel sympathy for those affected by them (I'm not a Diablo friend, so I'm looking in from the outside), but they are not what Blizzard's concern. So let's look at this from Blizzard's perspective: Why would they decide to put Always-Online DRM in Diablo 3?

This is where I see a problem. I don't see a reason why Blizzard would have Always-Online DRM. Let me go through the reasons I've been given so far.

To prevent piracy from taking sales from Blizzard: As I recall, Diablo 3 had tons of pre-orders and was basically guaranteed to make Blizzard even more billions of dollars. With that and the fact that Blizzard's fanbase have been fanatically loyal to them up to this point (no offense, Blizzard fans), that doesn't make much sense to me.

Because of the online auction house: Again, this doesn't make sense. All they would need to do is separate single-player and multiplayer saves and make single player offline-only (just like everyone wants). From what I've been told, this is basically how Diablo 2 was set up. If that's the case, then that makes even less sense since they already know how to code it that way.

It is easier to prove something did happen than that it did not. Similarly, it is easier to show a "why" as opposed to a "why not". So, I ask my fellow Escapists, why WOULD Blizzard decide that including DRM like this was the best decision? I think you'll find that the answer to that is arguably more important.

 

[Mister Six]

Because of the online auction house: Again, this doesn't make sense. All they would need to do is separate single-player and multiplayer saves and make single player offline-only (just like everyone wants). From what I've been told, this is basically how Diablo 2 was set up. If that's the case, then that makes even less sense since they already know how to code it that way.

This is essentially the point of the always online bit. If they were to include an offline single-player mode they would have to include all the data that is currently on their servers. If they did this then people could use said data to spawn/mod items and theoretically find a way to import said items to the online side and the RMAH, thus breaking it. That and it gives them more or less total control as to how the customer interacts with their product which is what all companies aspire to.

 

[isometry]

It's all about the integrity of the game. Diablo 2 as a pseudo-MMO was ahead of its time in many ways, but it was not as hack-proof as MMOs that keep most information on the server side.

 

[Elamdri]

Basically what Mister Six said. There are two reasons for the DRM.

1: To make life as hard as possible for pirates. Yes, people are still going to pirate. However, you have to remember that there are some people who fence-sit so to speak. They might buy the game if it's too much trouble to pirate, but if it is easy to pirate, they'll go ahead and pirate the game.

2: To encourage the RMAH, which is how Blizzard is going monetize the game and pay for the servers. If there was an offline mode, it would dis-encourage the use of the AH, and as Six said above, all the server code would have to be included in game.

 

[Imper1um]

DISCLAIMER: The information provided below does not in any way condone the effects of piracy. Piracy is bad. Purchase games!

The problem with DRM (including online-always DRM) is that it has absolutely no effect on piracy whatsoever. In fact, I know games that have tricky DRM that has the complete opposite effect on the "cracking rate" and "cracking interest" on a game.

The people that crack games do it for a challenge. If you don't include DRM, or you include simple DRM, it is cracked on a lower priority, since its simple to just crack. However, including harsh DRM such as Online-only starts a "hacking frenzy," in which hacking groups do a lot of things including:

1. Finding a "pre-supplier" of the game, that can get multiple full versions of the game (CD-Key and all) to the hacking group before launch date.

2. Go on the offensive about DRM and have a lot of cracking teams available the instant that the pre-suppliers can provide an ISO or a full disk of the game.

3. Call up old cracking teams in which the DRM "may be difficult." Some people have come "out of retirement" simply to crack a game that tests their abilities.

See, the thing is, Diablo 3 used the Online-Only to prevent the following issues:

1. Piracy (Server emulators already exist)
2. Hacking (No point...the AH is already oversaturated with top level gear at very cheap prices)
3. Cheating (Again, see 2.)
4. Duping (Again, see 2.)
5. Gold Farmers (The RL Money Auction House legitimizes their business now)

In this, they failed. A multi-million dollar feature has not only caused them bad press, but is also costing them continued business after the "new game smell" dies out.

 

[newdarkcloud]

Because of the online auction house: Again, this doesn't make sense. All they would need to do is separate single-player and multiplayer saves and make single player offline-only (just like everyone wants). From what I've been told, this is basically how Diablo 2 was set up. If that's the case, then that makes even less sense since they already know how to code it that way.

This is essentially the point of the always online bit. If they were to include an offline single-player mode they would have to include all the data that is currently on their servers. If they did this then people could use said data to spawn/mod items and theoretically find a way to import said items to the online side and the RMAH, thus breaking it. That and it gives them more or less total control as to how the customer interacts with their product which is what all companies aspire to.

So it basically does all come down to the Real Life Auction House. Great. Queue all the people who didn't want the auction house in the first place complaining about the auction house ruining Diablo. This is not going to end well.

Though I am curious as to how cheaters would be able to move items over to the multiplayer game. If Blizzard kept a tight leash on just the multiplayer portion, with the DRM and whatnot, that should be much harder. But, I suppose this is the path of least resistance.

On a side-note: As a P4 fan, I love your avatar.
Captcha: Zombie Prom

 

[BloatedGuppy]

See, the thing is, Diablo 3 used the Online-Only to prevent the following issues:

1. Piracy (Server emulators already exist)
2. Hacking (No point...the AH is already oversaturated with top level gear at very cheap prices)
3. Cheating (Again, see 2.)
4. Duping (Again, see 2.)
5. Gold Farmers (The RL Money Auction House legitimizes their business now)

In this, they failed. A multi-million dollar feature has not only caused them bad press, but is also costing them continued business after the "new game smell" dies out.

You're speculating. It's already the fastest selling PC game in history, and the always online DRM wasn't exactly a secret. If this is bad press and bad business I'm guessing Blizzard will happily take it.

This isn't a little indie product that can get blown under by a bad review or a troubled launch. Blizzard properties are pretty much critic proof at the moment, and likely will be for some time unless they're hampered by a string of failures. You can accuse them of being greedy, but you can't really accuse them of screwing up the business end of things.

 

[Esotera]

To appease shareholders, and to dissuade the casual pirates who would quite willingly copy a DRM-free game. Developers aren't entirely stupid...

 

[Thoric485]

More people online, equals more people using the RMAH and therefore more money trickling down to Blizzard through fees and use of their online store.

They don't care if that conflicts with some customers' convenience, security or enjoyment. The Diablo name pretty much sells itself.

 

[T_ConX]

To appease shareholders, and to dissuade the casual pirates who would quite willingly copy a DRM-free game. Developers aren't entirely stupid...

This. This times a thousand.

If you're the CEO of a publicly traded company (which Activision Blizzard is), it's your DUTY to maximize profit for your shareholders, otherwise they'll dump you and vote in someone else. That's why there's a new Call of Duty on store shelves every year.

When said shareholders hear from the ESA that piracy costs the industry GORILLIANS of dollars every year, they want to know that their CEO is doing everything to protect their bottom line.

In Diablo III's case, one of those things happened to be 'Treat paying consumers like criminals on parole'. Sadly, it turns out that about 3.5 million people are ok with this, meaning we can expect similar shenanigans in the future...

YOU MORONS! Torchlight II is just around the corner, and it doesn't pull any of this GODDAMN BULLSHIT! This was out chance to send the industry a MESSAGE, but you ASSHATS just FUCKED IT UP!

 

[Fishyash]

Because of the online auction house: Again, this doesn't make sense. All they would need to do is separate single-player and multiplayer saves and make single player offline-only (just like everyone wants). From what I've been told, this is basically how Diablo 2 was set up. If that's the case, then that makes even less sense since they already know how to code it that way.

Diablo 2 suffered immensely from dupes, map hacking and other hacks. Maybe Blizzard considered that Diablo 2 was so easy to hack/exploit because of the ability to experiment offline?

I don't think D3 is going to be immune to hacking from being online-only. I've seen gold seller advertisements with people floating in mid-air on World of Warcraft. But I feel that it's an extra measure of defence. I will be very dissapointed if the duping of items is found out by the release of the RMAH.

 

[Atmos Duality]

*sigh*
I just finished posting a War-and-Peace length dissection of this very topic. I have my own speculations, but since I'm now short on time, I'll have to keep this brief...

Diablo 2 suffered immensely from dupes, map hacking and other hacks. Maybe Blizzard considered that Diablo 2 was so easy to hack/exploit because of the ability to experiment offline?

Nope. Because the server platform they were running on Closed Bnet from patch 1.10 onward was VERY DIFFERENT from the version you could experiment with offline.

(1.09's hacks worked because the two were similar at that time; Blizzard never thought hackers would be so determined to create items just for PvP and griefing, and I think they underestimated the real-world value some of those items could carry after they launched Ladder Mode online)

Since there's no item economy to protect offline/LAN, there's really no reason they couldn't have provided a simple LAN code and kept the more sophisticated, secure version for their online game only.

At least, not because of this problem. I have my own theory as to why they backpedaled on the topic of LAN when Bnet 2.0 was announced.

I don't think D3 is going to be immune to hacking from being online-only.

Of course not. There is no airtight solution to those problems.
As long as those items have real-world value, SOMEONE will always be seeking a way to exploit them.

At best, you can treat the symptoms.

 

[allinwonder]

2: To encourage the RMAH, which is how Blizzard is going monetize the game and pay for the servers. If there was an offline mode, it would dis-encourage the use of the AH, and as Six said above, all the server code would have to be included in game.

Simply isn't true. If items can be easily duped in Diablo 2's battle.net, then why there are non-official real money equipment markets? Because items would have been virtually valueless if they can be duplicated.

There were some item duping happenings. But that's due to programming bugs, not client-side hacks. It can easily happen on the server side (templar+shield bug anyone?).

 

[Aeshi]

YOU MORONS! Torchlight II is just around the corner, and it doesn't pull any of this GODDAMN BULLSHIT! This was out chance to send the industry a MESSAGE, but you ASSHATS just FUCKED IT UP!

And what message would that have been, pray tell? "Making the exact same game over and over again is perfectly ok if you wait about a decade between remakes?"

 

[Littaly]

It's all a potentially very clever move on their part. They have plenty of somewhat agreeable motives to point towards if people accuse them of having less-agreeable motives, and there is no way of telling which ones were the driving motivation behind the decision.

Furthermore, they apply it on a game where they know people will reluctantly endure it instead of letting it affect their decision to buy the game.

I don't know how vicious the implementation of the always online DRM is, but the uncertainty is potentially very much intentional. And that bugs me.

 

[DoPo]

Because of the online auction house: Again, this doesn't make sense. All they would need to do is separate single-player and multiplayer saves and make single player offline-only (just like everyone wants). From what I've been told, this is basically how Diablo 2 was set up. If that's the case, then that makes even less sense since they already know how to code it that way.

This is essentially the point of the always online bit. If they were to include an offline single-player mode they would have to include all the data that is currently on their servers. If they did this then people could use said data to spawn/mod items and theoretically find a way to import said items to the online side and the RMAH, thus breaking it. That and it gives them more or less total control as to how the customer interacts with their product which is what all companies aspire to.

See, this is something I don't understand - how would separate online/offline segments of the game be so easy to compromise? Offline characters stay offline and would don't interact with the online portion at all and vice versa. At what point would there be a problem?

 

[Gothproxy]

Personally, I'm not interested in playing Diablo 3 until there is an offline option. Hearing that single player accounts are getting hacked because they are forced to play online just strengthens my resolve. Besides, Max Payne 3 came out the same day, doesn't need online play, and scored better on most (initial) reviews that I've seen.

But that's just my take on the matter. So far.

 

[Savagezion]

I don't know how many hours I put in on Diablo 2 (ditto for 1) playing online and offline, and I never had a problem with item hacks, dupes or anything. Yeah, I saw them available but I chose NOT to use them. If you wanted to avoid this, it was fairly easy. This DRM solves nothing for me but it does add a LOT of inconvenience.