Error 33

Blizzard Talks Diablo III’s New Path, Defends Online Req

Really? I'm kind of sick of developers treating legitimate customers like criminals by shoving DRM down our throat and now you want to treat us like idiots as well? Well, if it's meant to be played online, are you discriminating against your PlayStation players by not providing this awesome always-online experience? What makes them (as well as me because I do own a PlayStation) so undeserving of your full commitment to deliver to us the ultimate online gaming experience? Please male the PlayStation version of Diablo 3 always on as well. It's not fair that we don't get this feature.

It's starting to become obvious that the always-on feature in Diablo 3 is as a DRM. Now that the auction house is removed, their excuse for the persistent internet requirement is gone, and now they are looking for an excuse (and in fact have an excellent one as you can read from the interview) that they can fool their fans with. Even Heart of the Swarm (which I foolishly bought assuming it had the same system as Wings of Liberty) removed offline play.

Developers know that always-on doesn't sit well with gamers, so in order to still have it, they design the game with systems so as to justify it, and we saw how well that worked with the new SimCity as well as Diablo 3 hardcore mode. This was one of the reasons I only finished normal mode in hardcore for Diablo 3. I didn't play softcore because of the real money auction house, and it wasn't exciting nor fun. Yet hardcore was frustrating thanks to deaths due to lag, and my country's internet connection is considered pretty good compared to most of the world so I can't imaging how others play.

Always-on had another side effect - friends. I wanted to challenge myself, yet I get people dropping into my game and loading me with good gear or rushing me through the game, and it became increasingly rude to keep rejecting them. You know, some of us want to play offline, some of us want be play games to be alone, and no, being on social media and playing games with people over the internet is NOT being sociable. People are rude and dumb over the net, and if I want to play with friends, I do NOT need to be always on because I CAN contact them, because they are, well BY FRIENDS.

Quit being an idiot and assuming everyone's at your level because we can tell. The idiocy you see on your forums and YouTube comments represent the vocal minority, so just because most of them are not too bright, doesn't mean that all your consumers are.

Phew, got it out and oh well, back to boycotting your always-on DRM. (We generally accept always-on for free-to-play games, but even DotA 2 is adding LAN mode. So what's your excuse for not having LAN for SC2 tournaments? I know, monopoly and control.) (Yes, I know DotA 2 LAN still requires an internet connection, but I'm sick of seeing d/c at tournaments. At least the PCs are connected over LAN while the connection is merely to verify the copy of the game so d/c's or lag won't affect the game.) Wonder when it is when we can really combat piracy without punishing legitimate consumers, or is it even possible? Perhaps when we get fed up and totally stop purchasing games with such restrictions, and perhaps only then, will we know.

Always-On, DRM or Game Feature?

EA has come out and said DRM is a "failed, dead-end strategy" and that always-online for Sim City isn't DRM at all. That's pretty convenient. But I guess piracy is a failed, dead-end strategy for gamers who want more games because companies that don't earn money can't keep making games, however, torrenting isn't piracy either, it's just file sharing so that is fine, right?

 

Is having always-online in a game really beneficial for gamers and the company? Most gamers would scream out "NO", so why do companies still do it? Some reasons have been brought up, like the integrity of the game, especially if money is involved, like Diablo 3, or having a game where people can be interconnected, like SimCity. But why can't this be, say, OPTIONAL? Because if people can choose, companies will make less money? For Diablo, they want you to always consider the auction house, and so keep you online, and in the case of SimCity, because there are people visiting your cities, it would make it desirable for you to own premium buildings just to show it off?

And what if it were DRM? Does it benefit the company in anyway? I guess the pirates might have a harder time getting a free copy, or in the case of Diablo 3, probably not at all, but still, do you really expect the pirates to buy the game, and even if by some miracle, some do, will the money you earn from the 5 of them makeup for the maybe thousands that don't buy the game because they can't play it?

 

Will so many online distribution platforms, games can sell so much longer after they have been released. Sites like GoG are even fixing old games go help them run better on modern systems. But for games with an always online requirement, their lifespan is limited by the servers. These games can't keep selling simply because games cost less the longer it gets. After some time, the amount of money made cannot offset the costs of maintaining the servers, and because EA is famous for shutting down servers, I'm not sure if it's worth getting SimCity later at a discount as you never know when the servers are going down. So by limiting the lifespan of their games, they are doing themselves a disservice. (On that note, have you ever thought of what would happen if Steam were to shut down?)

 

And what of the consumers? Servers cost money to run, maintenance costs money as well, and the servers themselves are an investment, and this is why there are always launch problems. Did you think they really have no idea how it'll sell? There are pre-orders that give them a pretty good idea of how many servers are needed, but in order to save money, they would rather underestimate because launch day or launch week is probably the only time they'll get so many concurrent users. Over time, people stop playing, and the investment on the servers will be wasted. If that's the case, it would be wiser to let the consumers suffer during the launch, and hopefully, the company can get past the rough period with minimal additional costs, and when less people play, the available servers will sort themselves out.

 

Consumers hate DRM, and will bash a game to the ground, and EA has wisely agreed with consumers in order to get into their good books. Yet, in order to justify what they did with SimCity, they are forced to try and say that it is not DRM. I guess that is like claiming pirating games for demo purposes and not buying it even if one likes the games...

 

Oh, and just when I finished my draft, this:

 

 

How to solve this? I don't know... maybe start another separate server just for people who want to play without the auction house? And maybe add in single-player local play while you're at it?

Enjoying Sim City?

Always been a fan of Sim City since the first game. I was kind of sad that I'd be missing this due boycotting games with always online DRM, but not anymore!

Game Developers, Used Games and the Fans

There are rumours popping up that the next Xbox will be blocking used games. While this isn't the first time that rumours like this have surfaced, it is gaining more attention as we await the upcoming announcements regarding these new consoles.

Most people think this is a stupid idea because if only one of the consoles does go ahead with this, its rival will definitely gain the upper hand, or will it?

One thing to note is that if a console does block used games, it will most likely be more attractive for developers to release games on that console. Used games make up a large part in sales in brick and mortar stores, and it is said that certain stores will actively promote the sale of used games because of the higher profits. Publishers and developers gain no revenue from these sales, and it is understandable why they would go through lengths to deny this. Current measures include the online pass, promised DLCs, and locking achievements to a single account. If a console does block used games, it will be a huge draw for developers.

So then, will the console with more owners win out, or will the one with more games gain popularity? It will come down to whether gamers stick to their guns and support used games as an option, or sell-out and buy the less desirable console just so they can play the next big game. And looking at the trend of the gaming industry now, it is likely the gamers will give in. Already we are seeing gamers ignoring poor business practices and buying games with offensive DRM and supporting publishers that exploit their customers, and this is also because publishers cleverly do such things only on games that are highly anticipated. Take Capcom for example and it's on-disk DLC on Street Fighter x Tekken but not doing so on the new IP, Dragon's Dogma, or EA realizing the popularity and gamers' need to play the newest game in the series of Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 and adding micro-transactions, essential story day-one DLC and the like. So will gamers take it line, hook and sinker?

I don't personally think it's true because the rumours came with the Xbox having an always-online requirement. But then again, Microsoft came up with Games for Windows Live, so they aren't really that smart after all...

Release day from Hell

I have Diablo 3, and I have the time, but I'm choosing not to play it, but to observe the forums and facebook and 'listen' to the complains. This is the reason why I don't support always-on DRM, and this is why I don't play games with such requirements on release day, esp those that have millions of people waiting to play. This was the case when this form of DRM first came out for Assassin's Creed 2 (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/assassins-creed-2-unplayable-as-ubisoft-drm-servers-go-down-2010037/), and then later for the various MMORPGs (which have to be always-on, but day 1 issues still isn't acceptable). But I guess it doesn't affect me as much since I don't play them on release day.

Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I've the feeling that Blizzard has been slowly testing the gamers and 'socializing' them to accept always-on DRM. When I look back at Starcraft II, it is obvious that always-on DRM had been subtly at work in the title. You might say 'you can play offline!' but did you really try to do that? At launch, you could only play one offline account, and your progress on the offline account could not be linked to your online account, no achievements, no saves, and I do not think you can play custom games on that. In Diablo 3, they added a way to monetize their game in addition to having players pay to access the game. I wonder what they'll do next with their next game?

At least we know Blizzard is one company that responds fast and well, so have fun guys, I'm sure the issues will be resolved soon more or less.

P.S. For those who think that people who cry about this are just making a fuss out of nothing, I hope this does not happen to you:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/08/the-day-i-realised-always-on-drm-moaners-have-a-point/