The whole DRM/Online issue, I feel, should be separate from the game quality itself. People are reviewing with their anger, not their heads. They trying to "get back" at Blizzard in an incorrect way. The game itself, for all the rest of us know, is great! (Jim Sterling seems to think so).
Everything else is an external issue that they're probably going to fix.
Who still takes the user review score on Metacritic seriously? I think that they might as well switch the user review score to a binary would/not recommend this game. The user reviews are mostly binary already: the game is either a flaming piece of crap that will give you every form of cancer if you even think about playing it, or the game descended from on high and dispenses unicorns. I might be paraphrasing a little, but that's mostly what I read on Metacritic.
It is pretty ridiculous that the single player part of the game requires online access at all times. People went and bought the game for $60 US, and can't play it whenever they want to due to server issues, etc. I think that this grants them every right to complain.
That said, I'm not sure that a zero is warranted as the game does work at least 90% of the time. Then again, who cares what anyone says on metacritic?
Now on to you,
hazabaza1 said:
Gamers complain, nobody is surprised.
Seriously, fuck gamers.
I don't get always get reliable wireless in my bedroom - too many competing routers in the apartment building and mine has two angled walls to go through.
Therefore, I can't play Diablo 3 on my laptop in my bedroom so that other people can have the main rooms for whatever. Not because of server issues, not because the laptop can't handle the game, but because the wireless connection can get spotty due to circumstances beyond my control.
Were this a dedicated multiplayer or MMO game, that's completely on MY head, and I take that into consideration. If I join a multiplayer game under those conditions, I call a warning that my connection might drop, and I don't go into raids and such where this may affect other people's game.
But Blizzard's demarc (the point at which responsibility transfers) for the single-player mode of the game is not the online server, it's the operation of the game on the computer. Putting "oh and constant internet connection" in the system requirements *for reasons that benefit only themselves, and not me as the player* is not an excuse for single-player mode not working.
Other systems (Steam for one) support offline play for when you don't have an internet connection. For example, I can play Left 4 Dead 2 all day long using offline and local server modes, no problem. I just need to let Steam know I want it that way, and they're cool with it.
tl;dr there are valid reasons for blaming any failure of the game to operate because of the always-connected requirement on Blizzard, so giving a 0/10 is a fair-play response by people who paid for the game.
If Blizzard tells you what its selling well in advance and you don't like it you have 1 option, don't buy it, if anyone knows the facts about the game and knows the always online would be a problem for them and bought it anyway they assume the risk of it not working, not Blizzard.
No, I have lots of options. One of which is pointing out to prospective customers here on these forums that:
single-player mode does not require an internet connection to operate unless you deliberately spend the money and time to make it so,
and
said connection does not offer any benefit to the single- OR multi-player user that can't be done with on-demand technologies (click a button to be connected and click it again to disconnect).
Given these two points and the gaming industry's trend towards customer proctologies via hidden technologies, it's a fair surmise that Blizzard is getting some value from their consumers via this technology that they're not disclosing, such as marketing data.
If that's the case, they're both putting the expense of their data-mining operation onto their consumers (some of whom have pay-by-the-bit connections), and degrading the reliability of the single-player mode of the game to do so. This is something that consumers should be aware of before they make the decision to buy the game.
Fair enough but the only 2 points I'm trying to make are
"if you do play Diablo 3, you have no choice but to play the game on their servers"
I'm just focusing on that that first "if", buying the game means that you accepted what it was and like it or not, its an always online game. If you don't accept that don't buy it.
I'm a big, overt supporter of fair business and "voting with your wallet".
And I already do that already with companies I cannot trust, or feasibly cannot do business with. My internet connection regularly drops Bnet 2.0 with Starcraft 2; why the hell would I bother trying to play an entire game that requires a constant connection to it?
Second thing is that just because it can be a bad move doesn't mean game entities aren't gonna keep trying to implement similar methods of DRM, piracy is a problem in the PC games market. These are steps against pirates, hackers and the like. At least they aren't charging a monthly sub and calling it a MORPG, then it would be greedy.
Oh they will make their attempts for sure, and eventually, something will bomb on them, and it will spook their backers/investors. They will realize that maybe, JUST MAYBE the cost of absolute control isn't worth the added risk.
It's not like piracy has killed these companies outright; if piracy was actually costing them money they would have all gone out of business years ago, DRM or not. But the polar opposite has happened; the gaming industry has flourished and grown into a media force that rivals freaking HOLLYWOOD.
All the while, the "solution" is becoming more costly than the problem....and they expect their legitimate customers to foot the entire bill for it; both in terms of money, and rights.
IMO giving a game full time online servers with multiple beneficial features and asking no extra fee in return other than the option to maybe use the RMAH doesn't sound like a greedy practice to me, it sounds like an evolution of online and single player gaming combined.
IMO, it acts like a "gateway drug"; it's something to try to ease people into accepting this bullshit DRM as business standard. I remember when Oblivion launched and people discovered the Horse Armor DLC was on the disc. It raised such a huge stink that Bethesda vowed to be more forthcoming about their DLC offerings.
Today, on-disc DLC is just part-and-parcel of the business. Sure, SOME people make a fuss, but it was nowhere near the same level of rejection as it was then. (Today, we even have apologists who will blindly throw the word "entitled" at anyone for just criticizing DLC; not just for demanding or laying claim to it.)
You may see this as "evolution", but I see the subtraction of practicality and the introduction of a needless, major point of failure as back-peddling (especially for consumers).
"why the hell would I bother trying to play an entire game that requires a constant connection to it?"
You most likely wouldn't and shouldn't buy diablo 3 then, I know I would not buy it in that situation but the game is not faulty or broken, your internet might be and that's your ISP's fault so go after them not blizzard.
Game companies go out of business all the time and are then bought out by bigger entities, like EA and Activision, not that piracy caused it directly but it did contribute in a big way. Now those super entities don't want the same to happen to them. Plus they do the math and figure out how many people they would likely loose because of DRM to how many pirated copies would be paid copies instead and then make their decision, its not done as blindly as its made out, not to mention that its usually the publisher not the developer that pushed DRM.
On the third thing all I can really say is that gaming has been changing since its start and it never moves backwards only forward. When CD burners came out so did DRM and its been back and forth ever since.
A "gateway drug"? That was the first quarter slot pong machine actually, we are long addicted now.
...really? why drag DLC into this discussion?
Any gamer that votes with his/her wallet is not entitled just disappointed, entitled people are the ones that keep buying the same crap and complain that its not better or different when they don't give them a reason (not buying crap) to change anything. I'm on a 6 year EA boycott myself.
I don't get always get reliable wireless in my bedroom - too many competing routers in the apartment building and mine has two angled walls to go through.
Therefore, I can't play Diablo 3 on my laptop in my bedroom so that other people can have the main rooms for whatever. Not because of server issues, not because the laptop can't handle the game, but because the wireless connection can get spotty due to circumstances beyond my control.
Were this a dedicated multiplayer or MMO game, that's completely on MY head, and I take that into consideration. If I join a multiplayer game under those conditions, I call a warning that my connection might drop, and I don't go into raids and such where this may affect other people's game.
But Blizzard's demarc (the point at which responsibility transfers) for the single-player mode of the game is not the online server, it's the operation of the game on the computer. Putting "oh and constant internet connection" in the system requirements *for reasons that benefit only themselves, and not me as the player* is not an excuse for single-player mode not working.
Other systems (Steam for one) support offline play for when you don't have an internet connection. For example, I can play Left 4 Dead 2 all day long using offline and local server modes, no problem. I just need to let Steam know I want it that way, and they're cool with it.
tl;dr there are valid reasons for blaming any failure of the game to operate because of the always-connected requirement on Blizzard, so giving a 0/10 is a fair-play response by people who paid for the game.
If Blizzard tells you what its selling well in advance and you don't like it you have 1 option, don't buy it, if anyone knows the facts about the game and knows the always online would be a problem for them and bought it anyway they assume the risk of it not working, not Blizzard.
No, I have lots of options. One of which is pointing out to prospective customers here on these forums that:
single-player mode does not require an internet connection to operate unless you deliberately spend the money and time to make it so,
and
said connection does not offer any benefit to the single- OR multi-player user that can't be done with on-demand technologies (click a button to be connected and click it again to disconnect).
Given these two points and the gaming industry's trend towards customer proctologies via hidden technologies, it's a fair surmise that Blizzard is getting some value from their consumers via this technology that they're not disclosing, such as marketing data.
If that's the case, they're both putting the expense of their data-mining operation onto their consumers (some of whom have pay-by-the-bit connections), and degrading the reliability of the single-player mode of the game to do so. This is something that consumers should be aware of before they make the decision to buy the game.
"This is something that consumers should be aware of before they make the decision to buy the game."
That's why blizzard made them aware of it before the game even came out.
All the data mining stuff?...lets see some proof of that otherwise its just you slandering a game.
There is plenty of benefit to the online for the people that use it, On-demand tech? that laggy, buggy, always having to change my router settings adding 10 different ports for parts of the program, hoping my friends did the same and have the same patch as me, spending more time setting it up than using it tech? I'm glad its gone.
The game itself is quite awesome. The service isn't. People are justifiably pissed at not being able to play a great game because of the many issues plaguing it's always online mode.
You most likely wouldn't and shouldn't buy diablo 3 then, I know I would not buy it in that situation but the game is not faulty or broken, your internet might be and that's your ISP's fault so go after them not blizzard.
Sorry, but Blizzard still shares part of the blame there.
I've watched my friends and family playing D3, and I cannot help but think "There is absolutely no reason I couldn't be playing this locally. There is very little of what I'm watching that would not work as LAN or single player."
Which tells me that the game design itself is fine. It's merely how it's been marketed and sold that bothers me.
I hate to repeat myself, but I am not buying Diablo 3. I'm just commenting in this topic because, well, DISCUSSION VALUE. Understanding "why" is as important to me as the decision itself.
Game companies go out of business all the time and are then bought out by bigger entities, like EA and Activision, not that piracy caused it directly but it did contribute in a big way. Now those super entities don't want the same to happen to them. Plus they do the math and figure out how many people they would likely loose because of DRM to how many pirated copies would be paid copies instead and then make their decision, its not done as blindly as its made out, not to mention that its usually the publisher not the developer that pushed DRM.
I always take their "Piracy is killing us!" claims with heaping amounts of salt.
There are serious problems with their math and methodologies.
For starters, the problem is nebulous; as is anything involving illicit goods.
Second, there is the problem of bias; when asked about "potential losses", Publishers are always going to present the worst-case-scenario estimates. Why not? The subject is too nebulous to be scientifically proven, might as well spin it for all it's worth.
There exist indie developers who self-publish year after year and somehow still don't go out of business, despite lacking the massive market presence of any big publisher OR such restrictive DRM(Stardock, anyone?).
Piracy is a complicated problem that's I've rolled around in my head and discussed (at quite some length in PMs) for a while to very few definitive answers:
1)If piracy really was the massive, business-killing monster it's made out to be, very few *Publishers* would still be in business today (especially anyone developing only for PC).
2)The Indie game market would have died before it even got started. If anyone really has the right to complain about pirates, it's them; not the publishers. They're far more vulnerable than publishers simply because they lack the marketing presence to advertise their games.
3)Who is bothered the least by DRM? The Pirates, of course. Certifiable fact.
On the third thing all I can really say is that gaming has been changing since its start and it never moves backwards only forward.
That is a terribly dangerous assumption to make; not all developments lead to where we want them to, unfortunately.
For the longest time, I'd agree with you. I've grown up for almost the entirety of the gaming industry. The technological cap was the big issue; graphics, processing, programming barriers...but now that we've conquered most of those serious limiters, the business now focuses on product control, and how to control the consumer, rather than making better (or different) games.
And this worries me, because if human history is any indicator, when absolute control is established, negligence and abuse follows in its wake.
When CD burners came out so did DRM and its been back and forth ever since.
Curiously, the practice of "DRM" predates CD Burners.
For example:
The Elder Scrolls 1: Arena, had a randomized questionnaire with the answers in the back of the instruction manual. That way, if someone just copied the game blindly, they wouldn't be able to progress in the game. (this didn't last, since, well, the internet and all)
And there are even older examples than that.
A "gateway drug"? That was the first quarter slot pong machine actually, we are long addicted now.
Heh. Touche'.
Sorry if that comes across as kooky, but I'm unsure of how else to word it without going into detail. Alas, that seems to be what I must do.
As sore of a spot as it is (and I hate having to use it as an example due to its over-coverage, believe me), it's a perfect example of what I'm trying to get across.
If you want to ease a population into accepting changes that are unilaterally beneficial for you (and not for them), you start out by easing them in; sweetening the deal. Then gradually you keep asking for a little bit more, bit by bit, until you have them too engaged in your business that they do not want to, or cannot, disengage.
(Alternatively, your little bid might blow up in your face.)
If you think I'm making this up, this really isn't anything new; ISPs and Phone services have used this process since the first free-trial AOL floppy disk was shat out of Ted Turner's arse (I might be making the last bit up).
Termination fees. Rate hikes. Unspoken "Introductory rates" (they love these). Total Data limits on what are supposed to be dedicated RATES.
Little bits that the publisher wants in return. Hypothetically, something like..
-You always need to use our service to play
-You always need to use our service, and pay for DLC separately
-You always need to use our service, pay for DLC separately, and give us access to personal marketing information
-You always need to use our service, pay for DLC separately, give us access to personal marketing information, AND put up with advertisements
They'd love any excuse to charge more for the same stuff.
That's what business does, and they will do so gladly if you let them.
To wit, an example:
Cable TV started out with the premise that you paid for the programming, not the commercials. Today, cable and on-demand TV is as chock-full of advertisements as free network TVs and offers little in terms of higher quality shows.
I'm not saying that business is "the Enemy of all" because that's just stupid. Very little would get made or sold; but customers really should recognize when they're getting taken for saps and maybe iron out and demand some very basic securities for THEM.
(As boring as this sounds, go through and read some EULAs; you will always find that it's just a list of exclusions for YOU, and a list of rights for THEM except where they are parroting existing law like State Privacy Laws or such. No other contract type I know of is worded so unilaterally.)
At the very least, they should recognize how an always-online system creates a central point of failure for no other reason than the parent company thinks its only legitimate customers are all criminals.
Any gamer that votes with his/her wallet is not entitled just disappointed, entitled people are the ones that keep buying the same crap and complain that its not better or different when they don't give them a reason (not buying crap) to change anything. I'm on a 6 year EA boycott myself.
It seems that we agree on most things, game corporations have been ringing money out of every crack and crevasse that they can think of and in the last few years there had been more light shed on it. There was a time when I bought about 20 games a year at full retail, that is down to 3-5 now, unless its less than $3 on steam or an Indy game, I love terraria.
My CD burners point was the game breaking DRM. I believe EA was one of if not the very first company to break a game with DRM software but you are right, DRM has been around since before it was DRM and that its almost always broken and it goes back and forth. The only person that looses is the paying gamer.
With Diablo 3 its a sticky subject because the game has been attacked on the wrong front with the meta-bombing, which is supposed to be a review of the game not a protest to its requirements. I understand if someone lowers the score because of tech issues after playing long enough to actually review the game. What makes it extra sticky is the fact blizzard did not make an offline solo play available to people with less than adequate internet connections.
Blizzards target audience is made up of mostly blizzard fans, when they made WOW a lot of the games design was based from Diablo 2, many D2 fans play WOW, almost all of the people I played WOW with played D2. My guess is that Blizzard wanted to make D3 with some of the same features and community as WOW because of its massive success. Chatting with players in any modern blizzard game, auction house, achievements, friends list with the simplest co-op game joining Ive ever seen are all great blizzard themed features but where does that leave the people lacking the internet for it? They could have run split servers like D2 did, they said they did not want people that used the full features of the game to need to have 2 characters for open/single and for online. Also 2 separate servers for 1 game seemed silly.
Another reason was not so much pirates but hackers, by giving the community the whole game on disk they felt it would eventually lead to having the game fully hacked, then online play hacked by giving hackers all the files in a single player game, which is exactly what happened to D2. Blizzard will do everything they can to prevent that because of the real money auction house which is another subject I am mixed about but that's for another time.
For me it seems like blizzard it trying to make a better game for people but when you try to give everything to everyone someone always ends up with nothing and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" -Spock. All joking aside I wish Blizzard could have found a way to give even a basic version of the game as a single player only option but still be able to thwart the hackers.
Paying for the game and then complaining about stuff that was known AGES before release is just stupid.
You want to fight games with such DRM? Don't buy them. That's what I do. Getting out with the excuse "it will sell billions" is just the phrase hypocrits use. Hypocrits like probably the majority of the people who gave it a zero score.
I just want to make clear: It was a worldwide launch of a online title made by Blizzard. The people who thought that they could play it without problems during the first week have been hiding under rocks during all the game launches by Blizzard since WoW.
but not buying it doesn't do shit, only way anything could be done is running around yelling to everyone that DRM IS BAD, DON'T USE IT, but not even that works anymore
nah, I don't even care anymore, the industry is dying anyway, have fun with the game
It seems that we agree on most things, game corporations have been ringing money out of every crack and crevasse that they can think of and in the last few years there had been more light shed on it. There was a time when I bought about 20 games a year at full retail, that is down to 3-5 now, unless its less than $3 on steam or an Indy game, I love terraria.
My CD burners point was the game breaking DRM. I believe EA was one of if not the very first company to break a game with DRM software but you are right, DRM has been around since before it was DRM and that its almost always broken and it goes back and forth. The only person that looses is the paying gamer.
Well...it wasn't so much that the CD Burners themselves "broke DRM" as it was that the physical medium that only they had the ability to write on, was no longer exclusive to them.
With Diablo 3 its a sticky subject because the game has been attacked on the wrong front with the meta-bombing, which is supposed to be a review of the game not a protest to its requirements. I understand if someone lowers the score because of tech issues after playing long enough to actually review the game. What makes it extra sticky is the fact blizzard did not make an offline solo play available to people with less than adequate internet connections.
On this point, I agree completely (even though I do not like how D3 is presented, I strive to be objective here).
The usability issues and grievances would carry more weight if they were constant; not just on the first day. Sure the launch was fucked up pretty badly, but that hasn't persisted since, the situation did improve within a couple of days.
Hardly worth zero-bombing the game for (assuming you even bother with empirical scoring for opinions; I don't); especially if that's the only justification you provide.
If that shit had persisted for the first two weeks, or month, then yeah, I'd say the quality of service is unquestionably shit.
My guess is that Blizzard wanted to make D3 with some of the same features and community as WOW because of its massive success. Chatting with players in any modern blizzard game, auction house, achievements, friends list with the simplest co-op game joining Ive ever seen are all great blizzard themed features but where does that leave the people lacking the internet for it?
It leaves us in the dust, no different from an MMORPG.
My grievance, of course, is that I question if it was necessary to turn D3 into a faux-MMORPG in the first place. Would it have financially succeeded any less if it were modeled on D2?
Probably not.
They could have run split servers like D2 did, they said they did not want people that used the full features of the game to need to have 2 characters for open/single and for online. Also 2 separate servers for 1 game seemed silly.
Two points:
1) They only had multiple servers/Bnet Realms because nearly everyone in the US was still on dial-up in the year 2000. Distance was a big limiting factor for availability.
Today, the only "realms" they maintain are those associated with "regions" (Asia, Europe, etc) and even those eventually get rerouted back to their central servers in some manner.
2) The "need" to maintain 2 characters for Open/Closed Bnet is a weak defense, because it assumes that everyone who plays offline also plays online in equal proportions.
I think giving the player the ability to actually make that choice is more important any perceived inconveniences that result from it.
And if you somehow confused OpenBet as a separate set of servers; OpenBnet is actually just a matchmaking system that uses Local Hosting (just like LAN and Single Player); Blizzard doesn't host the game itself like they do on Closed Bnet, it just lets players know where other OpenBnet servers are without needing to find their IP address.
(And seeing how I didn't receive a paycheck from Blizzard for hosting via OpenBnet, I think it's safe to assume it didn't cost them a penny in hosting, apart from the referral list server which is no more expensive or complicated than an mIRC server)
Another reason was not so much pirates but hackers, by giving the community the whole game on disk they felt it would eventually lead to having the game fully hacked, then online play hacked by giving hackers all the files in a single player game, which is exactly what happened to D2.
I have refuted this very defense time and again.
People have somehow arrived at this misconception that Offline/LAN Server Code = More Online hacks and exploits.
Unless the two platforms are identical, THEY DO NOT.
Even then, the sorts of hacks that worked on Closed Bnet are VERY VERY LIMITED compared to hacks that worked offline (single player and LAN).
There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between editing some character files on your hard drive, and trying to break into Blizzard's servers to do the same thing. (Good luck with the latter, BTW)
Most Closed Bnet hacks were limited to interpreting data that was already sent from the server, and creating some sort of response (Pickit and Maphack being the most prominent) like generating lag through a known exploit or insta-grabbing whatever rare item just dropped. Or even just taking the map file that the server sent and revealing it entirely, rather than piecemeal.
Now, older hacks that worked in 1.09, that allowed for the creation of incredibly powerful items, were due exploits found through sampling the game's data traffic; picking apart what packets the server took from the client as legitimate, and then writing programs to tailor specific packets saying "This wondrously gamebreaking item dropped."
All of which worked without needing privileged access to Blizzard's Servers (and hard drives).
So, this worked because we had the server file, right? And that's why Blizzard keeps it out of the players hands now?
No, not really.
It doesn't apply because the server platform for Closed Bnet Diablo 2 changed dramatically with the 1.10 patch onward. New security protocols were implemented that the LAN server did not get ("Rust Storm", for starters). Changes were made to the item codes. Having the LAN server does NOTHING to help hack Closed Bnet.
A few major item hacks worked in 1.10 for a short time, but they didn't last long. I recall a mass-banning that resulted because of such a hack in 2007, where nearly 300,000 accounts were banned within a week of the hack launching.
That's the sort of vigilance Blizzard needed in order to protect the item economy; stripping away LAN and Single Player isn't going to change that, because the same vigilance is needed to police D3 regardless.
So, really, nothing changed as a result of giving players LAN, it's just that Blizzard underestimated the ingenuity and persistence of hackers, and the real-world value of items in a grind-based game with a competitive scene.
No system is perfect; and maintaining security is an ongoing, evolving process. That applies every bit as much to D3 as it does to WoW.
Blizzard will do everything they can to prevent that because of the real money auction house which is another subject I am mixed about but that's for another time.
The Real Money Auction House is Blizzard's attempt to become the dealer, instead of the police, as it were. The problem of Real Money for Fake Items goes deeper than the existence of Gold Farmers; into the dark realm of Skinner Box game design and its interesting, but disturbing, relationship with economics.
Though there is a point to be made about making sure everyone who plays is at least exposed to the concept of Pay2Win; it might attract players who wouldn't have considered the option before; doubly so if Blizzard says it's cool. Combined with the 15% cut Blizzard makes on every transaction...yeah. I can see that shit getting undermined in short order.
Another topic indeed...
For me it seems like blizzard it trying to make a better game for people but when you try to give everything to everyone someone always ends up with nothing and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" -Spock. All joking aside I wish Blizzard could have found a way to give even a basic version of the game as a single player only option but still be able to thwart the hackers.
But they could do the same thing as Diablo 2!
The online economy would still be protected for as long as Blizzard wants to protect it. Giving the players access to LAN and Single Player does not influence that at all, because even if they do develop hacks and mods for single player/LAN, they need privileged access to use them on Bnet.
See, the real reason Bnet 2.0's "economy" was ruined before, wasn't solely due to players hacking and botting the game; it was due to the lack of vigilance on Blizzard's part. They had a skeleton crew running the entirety of Diablo 2's chunk of Bnet from the release of Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne onward. It wasn't a major concern for them because it was still costing them money to support the game (though seeing how they were still selling box-sets of Diablo 2 in retail all the way til 2010, they couldn't have been doing that bad).
All hacks for Diablo 3 will need to be built based on sampling how the Bnet server and client behaves; which precludes the need for a local server program entirely; toward this end, nothing would change if there were a LAN mode.
The reason I speculate why they stripped Single Player and LAN out, was actually due to tunneling programs like Hamachi. Unfortunately, some background info is needed...so...
See, there's another old Blizzard game, Starcraft. It's kind of competitive, and very popular; the world's first real "e-sport" and a real national sport in Korea. It got the same level coverage there that Football, Basketball and Baseball gets in America.
And Blizzard doesn't see a dime from any of it. After years of failed lawsuits and pleas to get in on the action, they designed Starcraft 2 from the ground up to be competitive, but they designed it with the notion of control in mind. Korea wouldn't be able to take Starcraft 2 and turn it into a multi-million dollar sport without getting a cut of the action (apart from game sales...which is another point of controversy entirely).
Sure enough, Starcraft 2 isn't nearly as big in Korea precisely because they couldn't get the rights from Blizzard. How does this relate to LAN and Hamachi?
Enter ICCUP; a competitive network where the best Starcraft players practice. It's really just a matchmaking system routed through Tunneling/Trunking protocols, but it provided a means of competitive matchmaking that Blizzard's Bnet didn't/couldn't provide.
Incidentally, ICCUP works without modifying or editing a single file in Starcraft; making it impervious to IP and Copyright Laws. Legally, there was nothing Blizzard can do to stop ICCUP.
So, butthurt as they were, Blizzard made Bnet 2.0 with the sole purpose of absolute control; even if it stomped all over usability. And they would make it work for ALL of their games even if it made no sense. (like, say, Diablo 3?)
You cannot legally "tunnel" Starcraft 2 as you could Starcraft 1, because there is no LAN mode; one would have to be reverse-engineered, and that act itself violates IP Law.
Incidentally, Diablo 2's OpenBnet was a matchmaking system that works surprisingly similar to ICCUP. And I don't think anyone was clamoring for more of Diablo 2's incredibly wonky, horribly imbalanced PvP to the point where it could become an e-sport (we have MOBA games for that now anyway).
So as a legal defense, pooling everyone onto their servers is technically pointless, but I speculate that they're going to do it anyway because having absolute control means being able to deal with "problems" that aren't actually hurting your business (again, like Korea).
Again we agree on many things but from a fair standpoint hindsight is always 20/20. If blizzard made a giant mistake I'm sure they did not mean to in order to strong arm consumers out of their money. That fact is left up to wild interpretation and speculations that im not prepared to make. Also based on the D3 sales figures they did not make a mistake.
Atmos Duality said:
"See, the real reason Bnet 2.0's "economy" was ruined before, wasn't solely due to players hacking and botting the game; it was due to the lack of vigilance on Blizzard's part"
What did they have to be vigilant of other than players hacking and botting?
I believe what they did with D3 was extremely vigilant, easier to monitor everything when much of the game is server side is it not? I'm sure in blizzards eyes this solved much of that problem.
Atmos Duality said:
"Blizzard made Bnet 2.0 with the sole purpose of absolute control"
"2) The "need" to maintain 2 characters for Open/Closed Bnet is a weak defense, because it assumes that everyone who plays offline also plays online in equal proportions."
A very valid point but I am biased to it, I was one of the people that had characters on both offline and Bnet because of having friends that had dialup and could only invest the time to play single/open, and cable internet friends that played online only, I was torn into having 2 characters in the low ninety level range in order to play with all my friends which was exausting. I know this both makes and defeats my point but it gives credence to my personal reasons for agreeing with what blizzard did with D3.
Atmos Duality said:
"So as a legal defense, pooling everyone onto their servers is technically pointless, but I speculate that they're going to do it anyway because having absolute control means being able to deal with "problems" that aren't actually hurting your business (again, like Korea)."
Who gets to determine when something is hurting someones business? The owner of the business or some random passer by/observer? Or the consumer? As a consumer we are biased to our own benefit in every issue when its our money; which is the method of survival in society, which makes objectivity almost impossible.
What if the game were free? Would people have a problem with it?
If something prevents blizzard from making one red cent it is hurting their business. So from a legal standpoint it is not pointless if they feel it will make them even one cent.
Also I concede to the fact that legal and fair are not even close to the same thing.
Atmos Duality said:
"Would it have financially succeeded any less if it were modeled on D2?"
Speculation...there is no answer to this question.
Atmos Duality said:
"Well...it wasn't so much that the CD Burners themselves "broke DRM" as it was that the physical medium that only they had the ability to write on, was no longer exclusive to them."
My point was actually that corporations were releasing games that were broken when shipped completely due to DRM designed to prevent CD burner copies being made. If I remember right The Sims 2 was broken and required a patch to work with the full legal retail version and also required you to remove software from your computer that EA thought might be used to copy or run a pirated copy of the game.
Atmos Duality said:
"So, this worked because we had the server file, right? And that's why Blizzard keeps it out of the players hands now?
No, not really.
It doesn't apply because the server platform for Closed Bnet Diablo 2 changed dramatically with the 1.10 patch onward. New security protocols were implemented that the LAN server did not get ("Rust Storm", for starters). Changes were made to the item codes. Having the LAN server does NOTHING to help hack Closed Bnet."
Who known more about how blizzards files were compromised than blizzard?
Your also saying that because they had to release 10 patches to deal with hackers on closed bnet that its not a problem? Maybe they know more about their software than you do?
Or do you have personal experience hacking Bnet? I hate to ask that but it does sorta beg the question.
Atmos Duality said:
"No system is perfect; and maintaining security is an ongoing, evolving process. That applies every bit as much to D3 as it does to WoW."
Sorry for chopping up your post so much. If Ive taken anything out of context please let me know. I am merely trying to keep things simplified as possible. I am relieved to be able to have this discussion without the over zealous ranting and game slander that are usually found in discussions of this type.
From a business standpoint, no, they didn't make a mistake. (too early to say for sure, IMO, but I wouldn't doubt it at all if the trend remains)
But from a consumers rights standpoint, we've pretty much lost everything at this point.
What did they have to be vigilant of other than players hacking and botting?
I believe what they did with D3 was extremely vigilant, easier to monitor everything when much of the game is server side is it not? I'm sure in blizzards eyes this solved much of that problem.
I'm sure they believe that they solved that problem in their eyes.
But I'm not convinced it had to come at the price that it did.
Who gets to determine when something is hurting someones business? The owner of the business or some random passer by/observer? Or the consumer? As a consumer we are biased to our own benefit in every issue when its our money; which is the method of survival in society, which makes objectivity almost impossible.
What if the game were free? Would people have a problem with it?
I concede that it's a matter of personal interpretation and that there is some bias involved; but doesn't it strike you as absurd when businesses start treating missing POTENTIAL PROFIT (made known only in hindsight) strictly as COMPLETE LOSS?
On paper that sounds logical, but it actually contradicts the definition of "LOSS".
Starcraft never turned a LOSS. It made Blizzard MILLIONS IN PROFITS.
Sure, they can interpret that as "hurting their business", but I'm not exactly inclined to agree with that interpretation in the face of wild success.
In the case of Korea, that was a new market that Blizzard had not anticipated. Nobody did.
But now that they know about it, of course we're all inclined to suffer inconvenience just so Blizzard can squeeze a few more pennies out of the e-sport market (a ploy that blew up in their face, actually).
If something prevents blizzard from making one red cent it is hurting their business. So from a legal standpoint it is not pointless if they feel it will make them even one cent.
Also I concede to the fact that legal and fair are not even close to the same thing.
You can call it speculation; but given how wildly popular the game is on launch, there is no doubt in my mind.
My point was actually that corporations were releasing games that were broken when shipped completely due to DRM designed to prevent CD burner copies being made. If I remember right The Sims 2 was broken and required a patch to work with the full legal retail version and also required you to remove software from your computer that EA thought might be used to copy or run a pirated copy of the game.
Ah yes, the days of primitive Securom. I actually got burned by SecuROM once; not because I had anything pirated installed on my system, but because I had the audacity to install iso and imaging software just so I could install my CAD programs for class.
I love how if you go to their website and IMMEDIATELY see a PR blurb claiming "We aren't spyware that searches your computer! Honest!" when that was PRECISELY what their software did in the past until a court order told them to stop.
Your also saying that because they had to release 10 patches to deal with hackers on closed bnet that its not a problem? Maybe they know more about their software than you do?
Or do you have personal experience hacking Bnet? I hate to ask that but it does sorta beg the question.
A fair question. Yes, I actually do have some background in the matter.
I have an Associate's Degree in Network Engineering, with a certificate for Network Security.
Part of my Security Coursework was research, looking into an ongoing security problem at the time, and I chose Diablo 2 bnet as one of my case studies.
The biggest, most obvious problem: Blizzard neglected Diablo 2 for a long time, essentially giving them a skeleton crew. As for your question of "10 Patches"..
The launch of Lord of Destruction put the game at 1.08 for a very short time. 1.09 came out very shortly after 1.08, and that's what everyone played for YEARS. The first six patches came out in pretty rapid succession for the first year of Diablo 2 (Show of hands, who remembers pressing TAB to cause crippling lag in 1.00?)
By the time 1.09c rolled around, most of the known exploits were in full swing: item generation and "hacking" were rampant, "Eth/Ith" items were common and duplication was out of control. Blizzard knew full-well about those problems, but they didn't care enough to fix them in a timely manner, because at the time, they had a skeleton crew running support for D2.
This is why I keep talking about how their lack of vigilance was far more significant to the problem than the players having access to LAN. When they finally DID get around to addressing the problem, their solution made any argument about LAN contributing to the hacks completely moot.
The item hacks, (White Rings, Ith items, uber-poison charms) were developed from the core game engine (item codes; how the game determines and stores the variables on an item, which are actually quite complicated), and that's the only instance I know where your argument applied.
HOWEVER, the hacks only worked because Blizzard's SERVER PLATFORM was incredibly permissive. It was a problem on THEIR END.
It didn't actually check whether the items that the client claimed was picking up were actually possible to spawn legitimately (a key distinction between hacks and dupes. Dupes are based on existing items, most of which were capable of being generated by the game, which is why "perming" practices were important. Otherwise, your item would disappear when the next Rust Storm hit).
It didn't even check if the items EXISTED before; that the item the client was "picking up" was generated by the SERVER to begin with!
After 1.10, those exploits did not work (there are some dupe tricks that work, but it involves crashing the game and causing the server to neglect saving any changes to the remote character file; like dropping the item you just duped by handing it off to someone else).
The LAN-server was completely written out of the equation as a security hazard, which is why I scratch my head at Blizzard's reasoning here. They have the blueprint to provide LAN in such a way that does not compromise their system OR their online economy.
Without getting too deeply into the grit of it, I lurked on boards that were dedicated to hacking D2, and they were having significant trouble keeping up with Blizzard's security after 1.10 (at the time). Reverse-engineering and sampling network traffic, trying to decipher server controls. Usually looking for more methods of lagging or crashing the server.
Additionally, I downloaded some of the offline/LAN mods and file editors, and noted their behavior. The level of access you would need to use ANY of those mods online (for ANY version of D2, not just 1.10) would require having the equivalent of being able to write to the server's hard drive directly; you'd need remote access on their OS at the very least (if running Windows or Unix/Linux).
Which is something the LAN server for Diablo 2 is completely incapable of granting. You would need to make an actual intrusion attempt, and good luck with that.
Sorry for chopping up your post so much. If Ive taken anything out of context please let me know. I am merely trying to keep things simplified as possible. I am relieved to be able to have this discussion without the over zealous ranting and game slander that are usually found in discussions of this type.
I don't get always get reliable wireless in my bedroom - too many competing routers in the apartment building and mine has two angled walls to go through.
Therefore, I can't play Diablo 3 on my laptop in my bedroom so that other people can have the main rooms for whatever. Not because of server issues, not because the laptop can't handle the game, but because the wireless connection can get spotty due to circumstances beyond my control.
Were this a dedicated multiplayer or MMO game, that's completely on MY head, and I take that into consideration. If I join a multiplayer game under those conditions, I call a warning that my connection might drop, and I don't go into raids and such where this may affect other people's game.
But Blizzard's demarc (the point at which responsibility transfers) for the single-player mode of the game is not the online server, it's the operation of the game on the computer. Putting "oh and constant internet connection" in the system requirements *for reasons that benefit only themselves, and not me as the player* is not an excuse for single-player mode not working.
Other systems (Steam for one) support offline play for when you don't have an internet connection. For example, I can play Left 4 Dead 2 all day long using offline and local server modes, no problem. I just need to let Steam know I want it that way, and they're cool with it.
tl;dr there are valid reasons for blaming any failure of the game to operate because of the always-connected requirement on Blizzard, so giving a 0/10 is a fair-play response by people who paid for the game.
If Blizzard tells you what its selling well in advance and you don't like it you have 1 option, don't buy it, if anyone knows the facts about the game and knows the always online would be a problem for them and bought it anyway they assume the risk of it not working, not Blizzard.
No, I have lots of options. One of which is pointing out to prospective customers here on these forums that:
single-player mode does not require an internet connection to operate unless you deliberately spend the money and time to make it so,
and
said connection does not offer any benefit to the single- OR multi-player user that can't be done with on-demand technologies (click a button to be connected and click it again to disconnect).
Given these two points and the gaming industry's trend towards customer proctologies via hidden technologies, it's a fair surmise that Blizzard is getting some value from their consumers via this technology that they're not disclosing, such as marketing data.
If that's the case, they're both putting the expense of their data-mining operation onto their consumers (some of whom have pay-by-the-bit connections), and degrading the reliability of the single-player mode of the game to do so. This is something that consumers should be aware of before they make the decision to buy the game.
"This is something that consumers should be aware of before they make the decision to buy the game."
That's why blizzard made them aware of it before the game even came out.
All the data mining stuff?...lets see some proof of that otherwise its just you slandering a game.
There is plenty of benefit to the online for the people that use it, On-demand tech? that laggy, buggy, always having to change my router settings adding 10 different ports for parts of the program, hoping my friends did the same and have the same patch as me, spending more time setting it up than using it tech? I'm glad its gone.
You might have misquoted me - the part about Blizzard making people aware of something was about Blizzard disclosing what always-on does for THEM. Not just that "it'll be always-on".
And it's pretty hard to prove something when the only people with the information are not disclosing it, hence my "surmise" and call for Blizzard to DISCLOSE IT TO US. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Also, so not "slandering" the game, I'm calling into question the technology infrastructure Blizzard set up.
Lastly, if an always-online connection works without router bs, online with an on-off toggle also works without router bs. You might be mistaking direct peer-to-peer with centralized (server-managed) peer-to-peer.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
