I'm not gonna buy Diablo 3....

[Epona]

Let me put it another way, if everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist? You see, the reason the DRM keeps getting worse is because they can get away with it.

How about this angle ...

Since I actually saw the beta of Diablo 3 myself, I can tell you Diablo 3 uses the same basic server - client model and systems as WoW. Even the game launcher is the same and has the same 3 phase dynamic download mechanism. Server is checking all client inputs, like illegal movement or illegal items. Furthermore, all your static data is stored server side, characters and all.

Best way to describe Diablo 3 technically is a CORPG game that uses WoW server - client system and StarCraft 2 rendering engine.

Now, do you think they can remove this so called DRM? Or is it finally time to face up to the fact Diablo 3 is just not a single player game with DRM attached on top that would be easy to remove? Also, is WoW server - client model easy to compromise, i.e. do you know of many people using illegal copies of WoW sharing the official servers with paying subs?

Yes, I think they can remove the DRM (the pirates will) and they could add a single player offline mode so people who play on the go can still play.

You didn't answer my question so I will ask it again:If everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist?

 

[Lukeje]

I'm probably not going to buy it either. But that's not because of some kind of morality, merely because I don't really like hack'n'slash dungeon crawler type-games.

 

[PingoBlack]

You didn't answer my question so I will ask it again:If everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist?

No.

They have been basing their future on online gaming for years and are counting online services, the added value, will keep people interested.

They did exactly the same for SC2 before. They were well aware it would get stolen by many. But they counted that the gutted version will in the long run help them get actual accounts in. That kind of long term planning so far worked out much better than short term things a'la Ubisoft.

However ... I mentioned WoW like server - client system. Which is a bit more annoying to steal, as pirates will have to make a copy of server system, like they did with WoW. It will also require someone to run pirate servers and such, plus they will have to adjust game rules on the same server copy to actually get the same game play ...

So I don't expect a good pirated version anytime soon.

 

[Epona]

You didn't answer my question so I will ask it again:If everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist?

No.

They have been basing their future on online gaming for years and are counting online services, the added value, will keep people interested.

They did exactly the same for SC2 before. They were well aware it would get stolen by many. But they counted that the gutted version will in the long run help them get actual accounts in. That kind of long term planning so far worked out much better than short term things a'la Ubisoft.

However ... I mentioned WoW like server - client system. Which is a bit more annoying to steal, as pirates will have to make a copy of server system, like they did with WoW. It will also require someone to run pirate servers and such, plus they will have to adjust game rules on the same server copy to actually get the same game play ...

So I don't expect a good pirated version anytime soon.

No? So Blizzard would go out of business before they would drop the DRM? You believe that?

If they weren't selling very many copies and weren't even going to break even, they would drop the DRM in my opinion.

 

[Stammer]

Whos with me?

Me!

I kinda liked Diablo II, but Diablo III just looks like garbage to me. That, and I really, really hate Blizzard and don't think they deserve my money.

 

[targren]

You're... always... online... anyway. So again I ask, wherein lies the problem with it? Why would you have a principle issue with a requirement that you and anyone else who even wants to play the game meet?

Because it's not a question of convenience or meeting the requirements. That's where the 'principle' part comes in. We're handing over our hard-earned money to Blizzard, for them to come back with treating US, the ones who PAY for the game, like criminals, while the inevitable hacked version shows up on the torrent sites with the DRM defeated.

They're selling us an inferior experience to the one the pirates offer, AND they're treating us like the bad guys to do it.

Now, some people have no problem with that, and that's fine for them. There's always the group who will happily shell out and net-battle in defense of anything with a Blizzard label on it, down to Bobby Kotick taking a dump in a repurposed box Battle Chest box, and the "Secondhand sales are no better than piracy" crowd who thinks that corporate profits are more important than their own rights, but only so long as it's a corporation that they personally like.

But there are, and always will be people who have the dignity and self-respect to not support those who treat us like garbage, even if it means not doing something we might really want to do. THAT is what 'principle' is.

 

[Alon Shechter]

Good to know.
I happen to be a fan of Yogurt myself.

 

[PingoBlack]

No? So Blizzard would go out of business before they would drop the DRM? You believe that?

If they weren't selling very many copies and weren't even going to break even, they would drop the DRM in my opinion.

But you are speaking hypothetically. I used SC2 as an example of real world case.

The game was released with Battle.Net authentication as requirement (the thing you call DRM). The game was pirated very fast, as it uses much simpler client server model. Yet they still sold a lot of copies, so I can only assume customers saw real value in Battle.Net services, beyond just DRM.

 

[targren]

But you are speaking hypothetically. I used SC2 as an example of real world case.

The game was released with Battle.Net authentication as requirement (the thing you call DRM). The game was pirated very fast, as it uses much simpler client server model. Yet they still sold a lot of copies, so I can only assume customers saw real value in Battle.Net services, beyond just DRM.

The fact that they "sold a lot of copies" in your Real-World case makes it irrelevant to his point.

Let me put it another way, if everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist? You see, the reason the DRM keeps getting worse is because they can get away with it.

Clearly, everyone DIDN'T refuse to buy SC2, so your real-world case doesn't counter his hypothetical case. Unless, of course, you intended to suggest that Blizzard has a big enough legion of fanboys that they would effortlessly make blockbuster sales numbers of a game that kicked them square in the nuts every time they loaded it up. That would counter his point, I suppose.

 

[godofwarishere]

Like it or not u wil buy it

 

[PingoBlack]

The fact that they "sold a lot of copies" in your Real-World case makes it irrelevant to his point.

Irrelevant how?

If everyone refused to buy Diablo III because of DRM, would Blizzard drop the DRM even though piracy would still exist?

I would suggest relation between DRM, sales and customers relevant here. And it would also suggest people do not refuse Battle.Net if they see added value in service instead of only DRM. Since they could clearly use pirated SC2, but they did not.

 

[targren]

The fact that they "sold a lot of copies" in your Real-World case makes it irrelevant to his point.

Irrelevant how?

Because it doesn't illustrate the case he was making.

Logically:
His assertion was "IF The DRM seriously hurt sales(p) THEN Blizzard would abandon the DRM(q)."

You countered with "The DRM did not seriously hurt sales of Starcraft 2(not p)."

F->T is still a valid implication, meaning that your point does not counter his conclusion at all. In order to do that, you would need to show a case where DRM *did* cripple sales, and Blizzard STILL didn't abandon it which, to my knowledge, has never occurred.

He wasn't talking about whether or not people were Anti-DRM. He was talking about the flaw in the propaganda's logic that would manifest IF they were, so people accepting the Battle.Net restrictions is an orange in the apple cart.

 

[Epona]

No? So Blizzard would go out of business before they would drop the DRM? You believe that?

If they weren't selling very many copies and weren't even going to break even, they would drop the DRM in my opinion.

But you are speaking hypothetically. I used SC2 as an example of real world case.

The game was released with Battle.Net authentication as requirement (the thing you call DRM). The game was pirated very fast, as it uses much simpler client server model. Yet they still sold a lot of copies, so I can only assume customers saw real value in Battle.Net services, beyond just DRM.

Starcraft 2 did sell well which is why Blizzard was encouraged to put even worse DRM on Diablo 3.
Oh nevermind, this is a waste of time. Go buy it and have fun with it.

 

[thehorror2]

So, let me get this straight. You will not be purchasing a copy of Diablo 3 because... it needs a internet connection to play. I don't get it. Please clarify on the logic and reasoning here dude.

Exactly. I was jamming for this game, was going to upgrade my laptop so I could play it at full spec, but now I want nothing to do with it. I play City of Heroes for my always-online multiplayer fix. I want nothing to do with a game that forces me to be online for no benefit to me.

This game is designed to be played like an mmo with your friends, there in lies the benefit. maybe there is some logic to you and OP but i can't see it. seems like you are refusing to buy a game because it wants you to play it as intended. bizarre nonsequiter.

This is the problem with gamers, always see anything that isn't exactly as usual within a game as a problem, not a solution.

My point is, not everyone WANTS to play with other people all the time. If I'm not playing online with other people, not using the auction house, and doing nothing with Battle.net, THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO BE ONLINE. That is a restriction on my use of a product that I have theoretically payed good money for, and one that doesn't exist in any other medium. DVDs don't force you to connect to the internet at all to play them, and they get pirated at least as much as video games. I don't have to be on a wifi network to listen to my ipod, and the internet is swimming with cracked mp3s. This is an unacceptable breach of my rights as a consumer, and I will not tolerate it.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there. The sentiment of the poem was that ignoring an issue because it doesn't effect you will only lead to you getting screwed over as well. I also fail to see how your version of the poem has anything to do with DRM. My argument still stands.

My point was that said poem seems to operate on the logic that all the Nazis guns/tanks and other various bits of kit would all magically fade into nothingness if they had spoken out at the start.

I personally am willing to bet that even if they had spoken out at the start of then the result would've still been the same, it'd just have taken a bit longer and been a bit bloodier.

And I'd agree with that, but the poem still illustrates my point fairly well.

 

[Cridhe]

You're... always... online... anyway. So again I ask, wherein lies the problem with it? Why would you have a principle issue with a requirement that you and anyone else who even wants to play the game meet?

Because it's not a question of convenience or meeting the requirements. That's where the 'principle' part comes in. We're handing over our hard-earned money to Blizzard, for them to come back with treating US, the ones who PAY for the game, like criminals, while the inevitable hacked version shows up on the torrent sites with the DRM defeated.

They're selling us an inferior experience to the one the pirates offer, AND they're treating us like the bad guys to do it.

Now, some people have no problem with that, and that's fine for them. There's always the group who will happily shell out and net-battle in defense of anything with a Blizzard label on it, down to Bobby Kotick taking a dump in a repurposed box Battle Chest box, and the "Secondhand sales are no better than piracy" crowd who thinks that corporate profits are more important than their own rights, but only so long as it's a corporation that they personally like.

But there are, and always will be people who have the dignity and self-respect to not support those who treat us like garbage, even if it means not doing something we might really want to do. THAT is what 'principle' is.

I'm still just simply not understanding how they're treating you like garbage by having an online connection requirement. I could give a flip less about Diablo 3 personally, it's not Diablo without the original team working on it. I simply am NOT understanding this at all. So they require an internet connection which you already have but that automatically means they're anti-gamer? You're online anyway, dude. Get over yourself.

You weren't intending to pirate the thing anyway right? That's the only reason I could see someone getting upset over this.

http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/data/585/medium/penny-arcade-always-on.jpg

 

[Robert Ewing]

Diablo 3 was a must buy for me, but the always online thing has put me off a little... I dunno, I may accidently download a crack.

 

[targren]

I'm still just simply not understanding how they're treating you like garbage by having an online connection requirement. ... I simply am NOT understanding this at all. So they require an internet connection which you already have but that automatically means they're anti-gamer? You're online anyway, dude. Get over yourself.

"You're online anyway" doesn't make it any less of a dick move, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I made it perfectly clear why I object to their decision. I can't explain it any more simply. If you honestly still can't understand it, then I can only conclude that you either refuse to bother, at which point you're simply wasting my time, or there is some developmental deficiency on your part.

You weren't intending to pirate the thing anyway right? That's the only reason I could see someone getting upset over this.

That's because you obviously believe the bullshit lie that DRM works. That's part of the point that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

DRM. Doesn't. Stop. Pirates. Never has. Copy protection has been cracked since at least the C64 days. And even back then, it screwed over the legitimate customers (Midway's "Spy Hunter" was known to trash drives because of the protection) while the ones who traded copies over the Sneakernet had no problems.

 

[Cridhe]

I'm still just simply not understanding how they're treating you like garbage by having an online connection requirement. ... I simply am NOT understanding this at all. So they require an internet connection which you already have but that automatically means they're anti-gamer? You're online anyway, dude. Get over yourself.

"You're online anyway" doesn't make it any less of a dick move, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I made it perfectly clear why I object to their decision. I can't explain it any more simply. If you honestly still can't understand it, then I can only conclude that you either refuse to bother, at which point you're simply wasting my time, or there is some developmental deficiency on your part.

You weren't intending to pirate the thing anyway right? That's the only reason I could see someone getting upset over this.

That's because you obviously believe the bullshit lie that DRM works. That's part of the point that you can't seem to wrap your head around.

DRM. Doesn't. Stop. Pirates. Never has. Copy protection has been cracked since at least the C64 days. And even back then, it screwed over the legitimate customers (Midway's "Spy Hunter" was known to trash drives because of the protection) while the ones who traded copies over the Sneakernet had no problems.

You never explained HOW they're treating you like shit by having an always online requirement, nor how your experience with the game will lack because of it. You can still play solo, you just need an internet connection. Which you have, and you're always on. So what is the big fucking deal?

Edit: WHy are pirates and pirated copies even a factor in the equation? They're only hurting gaming as is, it's not possible for them to offer a "better version".

 

[PingoBlack]

He wasn't talking about whether or not people were Anti-DRM. He was talking about the flaw in the propaganda's logic that would manifest IF they were, so people accepting the Battle.Net restrictions is an orange in the apple cart.

Right, propaganda ... Who's?

I'm not selling anything here, just offering a wider view. I'm not the one claiming all DRM is same, you are. I'm just offering ideas why a huge difference in DRM systems and what they offer to customers should be the main base for debate.

And I mostly get my assertion Diablo 3 is a CORPG ignored. As it ruins the DRM argument. So mostly it seems since Diablo 2 was different, we should assume any change made in 10 years is the result of evil drive to DRM the hell out of customers, who are all angelic people with no bad intentions.

So I wonder where the propaganda is actually coming from.