Blizzard's Seoul Offices Raided by Korean FTC

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
did they end up adding an offline mode to SC2 or no?

You can play the campaign mode offline, but no offline vs LAN play.

With D3 that would be literally impossible, without what I would assume, is a huge patch to bring all the server side information client side.
 

Kalmah

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2003
3,692
1
76
If I order a burger and am told that I cannot eat it without ketchup, then they give me no ketchup, I want a refund.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Yeah I guess people don't really like throwing their money away.

Who'da thunk it... ;)

I paid $100 for the Collector's Edition, and you don't hear me complaining about the stability. About other aspects of the game, sure, but at least I'm complaining about the gameplay itself not the lack thereof. ;)

Until now most of the frustration was vented at Ubisoft and EA, but now that Blizzard has also joined suit it becomes apparent that always on DRM is going to become the rule instead of the exception, and also that we are relying on developers to provide stable platforms in order to regulate it.

I don't get why people keep calling this "Always Online DRM", because it's not. You do have to be online while playing Diablo III, which is similar to always online DRM schemes; however, as the phrase goes, "the difference is in the details."

Ubisoft requires you to be online while you play their game, which does not have any need to actually talk to a server. The game is all played locally (barring any multi-player feature that may require you to connect to another player).

Blizzard requires you to be online while you play their game, which requires all commands to be sent to a server, which will then provide unit (character, NPC and enemy) positioning as well as terrain detail. The game is always played on the server regardless of whether you are playing alone (because the server still vets everything you do) or playing with others.

I said many times before Diablo III ever came out that the game is a "MMO Lite." The only difference between Diablo III and other MMO games is that it lacks a combined persistent world. An example would be if you took Guild Wars and removed that combined city that you can see everyone in. In Guild Wars, you get your own instance when you run out into the world. Although, to my knowledge, maps aren't randomly generated.

[q]Duration of the "On-line" Component.
The Game is capable of both offline and online player modes, both of which require that you obtain authorized access to the Service. You understand and agree that the Service is provided by Blizzard at its discretion and may be terminated or otherwise discontinued by Blizzard pursuant to the Terms of Use.
[/q]

Hmm that is not very true then. Unless...their definition of 'obtaining authorized access' means that you need to obtain it every 1 second LOL

Offline and online are used here a bit oddly, but consider replacing them with "single player" and "multi player" (respectively) and it makes more sense.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
I paid $100 for the Collector's Edition, and you don't hear me complaining about the stability. About other aspects of the game, sure, but at least I'm complaining about the gameplay itself not the lack thereof. ;)

Hey, if you choose not to complain about not being able to play a game you paid good money for, through no fault of your own, that is your business.

I don't get why people keep calling this "Always Online DRM", because it's not. You do have to be online while playing Diablo III, which is similar to always online DRM schemes; however, as the phrase goes, "the difference is in the details."

People are calling it 'Always online DRM' for the very simple reason that Blizzard keeps on saying the reason even single player mode has to be online is because that is how their DRM works.

Ubisoft requires you to be online while you play their game, which does not have any need to actually talk to a server. The game is all played locally (barring any multi-player feature that may require you to connect to another player).

Blizzard requires you to be online while you play their game, which requires all commands to be sent to a server, which will then provide unit (character, NPC and enemy) positioning as well as terrain detail. The game is always played on the server regardless of whether you are playing alone (because the server still vets everything you do) or playing with others.

I said many times before Diablo III ever came out that the game is a "MMO Lite." The only difference between Diablo III and other MMO games is that it lacks a combined persistent world. An example would be if you took Guild Wars and removed that combined city that you can see everyone in. In Guild Wars, you get your own instance when you run out into the world. Although, to my knowledge, maps aren't randomly generated.

Some other differences between Diablo III and MMOs include (but are not limited too):


  • It not being sold as an MMO.

    You don't pay a monthly fee for content.

    It has a specifically named Single player mode.

    Content is and will continue to be updated on an MMO whereas, probably not with Diablo III.

    MMOs traditionally have a hand full of servers where THOUSANDS of players interact.

    Diablo III generally is (MUCH) fewer than a hundred in any given world.
Offline and online are used here a bit oddly, but consider replacing them with "single player" and "multi player" (respectively) and it makes more sense.

If you do that, you completely change the meaning of the passage. the point is, that D3 TOS appears to have wording in it that indicates an off line mode. But that is absolutely not in the game. Which is a problem for some players.

Off line does not equal single player. And Online does not equal Multi player. And changing the content only proves the point that the statement is miss leading.

"All men are created equal"

If you change the word "Are" to Aren't, you have changed the meaning of the statement. And I bet if you try to use the two statements interchangeably, you will get people mad at you.
 
Last edited:

titan131

Senior member
May 4, 2008
260
0
0
I don't get why people keep calling this "Always Online DRM", because it's not. You do have to be online while playing Diablo III, which is similar to always online DRM schemes; however, as the phrase goes, "the difference is in the details."

Ubisoft requires you to be online while you play their game, which does not have any need to actually talk to a server. The game is all played locally (barring any multi-player feature that may require you to connect to another player).

Blizzard requires you to be online while you play their game, which requires all commands to be sent to a server, which will then provide unit (character, NPC and enemy) positioning as well as terrain detail. The game is always played on the server regardless of whether you are playing alone (because the server still vets everything you do) or playing with others.

I said many times before Diablo III ever came out that the game is a "MMO Lite." The only difference between Diablo III and other MMO games is that it lacks a combined persistent world. An example would be if you took Guild Wars and removed that combined city that you can see everyone in. In Guild Wars, you get your own instance when you run out into the world. Although, to my knowledge, maps aren't randomly generated.
So, you don't think the reason Blizz made the single player mode online only has anything to do with preventing piracy? Because I think that it's the main reason and if I'm right then it is DRM, just a new type of always online DRM.

For me, the thing that defines an MMO is a persistent world, where many players can play at once. If a game doesn't have those things then it isn't an MMO, end of story.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Hey, if you choose not to complain about not being able to play a game you paid good money for, through no fault of your own, that is your business.

Frankly, everyone complaining is just too naive and uneducated in how online-only games work. Perhaps if they would have actually experienced one first, they would realize what they are getting themselves into. After playing World of Warcraft for over seven years, I'm not the least bit surprised at how Diablo III has gone so far.

While reading through the Diablo III thread post release, one of the things that I've picked up on pretty quickly is that (usually) the people that bitch about server stability did not play World of Warcraft.

People are calling it 'Always online DRM' for the very simple reason that Blizzard keeps on saying the reason even single player mode has to be online is because that is how their DRM works.

You and everyone else keep failing to grasp this very simple concept. It's a matter of why the game requires you to be online. Ubisoft requires me to be online simply because that's their form of DRM. Blizzard requires me to be online, because THE ENTIRE GOD DAMN GAME IS PROCESSED THROUGH A FUCKING SERVER.

How is that really so hard to grasp!? Sheesh.

So, you don't think the reason Blizz made the single player mode online only has anything to do with preventing piracy? Because I think that it's the main reason and if I'm right then it is DRM, just a new type of always online DRM.

No. Way before the release, I stated that my thought on why the game is always online actually has to do with reducing the amount of cheating in the game. Even post release, I still hold to this as being the reason for the game requiring an active Internet connection.

I also think that the Real Money Auction House won't be released until Blizzard sees a sharp decline in the number of people being hacked. That's why I wasn't terribly surprised when it got delayed.

For me, the thing that defines an MMO is a persistent world, where many players can play at once. If a game doesn't have those things then it isn't an MMO, end of story.

Is Guild Wars not a MMO? The game only has a central hub that is shared amongst players, but the rest of the world is instanced. In fact, you can hire "underlings" rather than playing with other people. If anything screams "single player", it's concepts such as that; however, the game is considered a MMO.
 

bguile

Senior member
Nov 30, 2011
529
51
91
Frankly, everyone complaining is just too naive and uneducated in how online-only games work. Perhaps if they would have actually experienced one first, they would realize what they are getting themselves into. After playing World of Warcraft for over seven years, I'm not the least bit surprised at how Diablo III has gone so far.

While reading through the Diablo III thread post release, one of the things that I've picked up on pretty quickly is that (usually) the people that bitch about server stability did not play World of Warcraft.

I did not know that playing wow was a requirement for D3.
 

titan131

Senior member
May 4, 2008
260
0
0
No. Way before the release, I stated that my thought on why the game is always online actually has to do with reducing the amount of cheating in the game. Even post release, I still hold to this as being the reason for the game requiring an active Internet connection.
I played Diablo II on the closed battlenet and never experienced any problems with cheating, nor did any of my friends as far as I know. The downside of course was that I could not play with my single player characters on the those servers. Instead, if I wanted to play online with my characters, I would have to use open battlenet, where there was a lot of cheating.

The best possible thing Blizz could have done, from my perspective, would have been to give the player a choice, either you can make a single player character that you can play offline and, if you want, you can use open battlenet (where there is cheating). Or you can create an online only character who can play single player or multiplayer on a secure server, but you must be online at all times to ensure there is no cheating.
Is Guild Wars not a MMO? The game only has a central hub that is shared amongst players, but the rest of the world is instanced. In fact, you can hire "underlings" rather than playing with other people. If anything screams "single player", it's concepts such as that; however, the game is considered a MMO.
Yeah, Guild Wars is an interesting one, I wonder if there was no central hub at all whether it would still be considered an MMO?
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
417
126
tbqhwy.com
the F cheating was so rampent in D2 it was massive, the fact that hacks were made to counter other hacks was pretty insane and the duping even on the ladder was everywhere, as well as botting, i dont know a single person that played on the ladder seriously who didnt run pindlebot
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I did not know that playing wow was a requirement for D3.

Of course it isn't, silly! The point was to show how people that played Blizzard's gargantuan MMO are used to the way always-online games work... or in this case, how they don't work. :p

The best possible thing Blizz could have done, from my perspective, would have been to give the player a choice, either you can make a single player character that you can play offline and, if you want, you can use open battlenet (where there is cheating). Or you can create an online only character who can play single player or multiplayer on a secure server, but you must be online at all times to ensure there is no cheating.

It's my thought that Blizzard really likes the idea that you are free to join in on a friend at any point in time. What's kind of amusing (and the reason why I italicized "free") is that by doing this, they forced you to be not-so-free in the way you play the game.

I probably would have preferred what you mentioned as well. I tend to play games alone most of the time, because it lets me play at my own pace. I was talking to a friend of mine who said he made his game public. He complained that someone joined into the game and just sat there steamrolling through the content. He said he got tired of the person just completing all the quests, and he won't play public games anymore.

Yeah, Guild Wars is an interesting one, I wonder if there was no central hub at all whether it would still be considered an MMO?

MMO is kind of a muddied term as it is. I mean... MMO in itself just means "massively multiplayer online." In some ways, even StarCraft II is a MMO, because everyone from a region goes into a massive pool of players.

While I think a persistent world is pretty much considered very commonplace in MMOs, I guess it's not really a requirement.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
Added an update to the OP, looks like some real possibility Blizzard is going to have to pony up. This has been a long time coming with some of what Blizzard/Activision has been doing as a corporation as late.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Di...ally-Anti-Consumer-Says-Korean-FTC-43043.html

Now that South Korea's Fair Trade Commission has raided Blizzard's offices, gathered up the paper work and are looking things over, the general gist is that they feel that the sales contract terms may be unfair, especially to unsuspecting consumers. So why is it unfair? Mainly because it's looking as if Blizzard may have set up terms to be absolved of all issues, problems, glitches, outages and down-times associated with Diablo III that could result in people wanting a refund for the game. In other words, they void themselves of accountability so they don't have to issue a refund.

What makes matters worse is because even people who don't plan to play with others and just want to log-on and loot and wank for a bit will still take up space on the network highway. This means that even people who are playing single-player are still clogging up the infrastructure as if they were playing multiplayer. There really isn't any way around this, so Korean gamers whether they play solo or in a party are experiencing horrible lag, rendering their gaming experience unplayable.

If Blizzard can't find a way to fix the situation fast, investigators are expecting that the FTC will issue a mandate to enforce Blizzard to issue refunds to everyone who requests one...in Korea, of course.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Frankly, everyone complaining is just too naive and uneducated in how online-only games work. Perhaps if they would have actually experienced one first, they would realize what they are getting themselves into. After playing World of Warcraft for over seven years, I'm not the least bit surprised at how Diablo III has gone so far.

While reading through the Diablo III thread post release, one of the things that I've picked up on pretty quickly is that (usually) the people that bitch about server stability did not play World of Warcraft.

Saying another game by the same manufacturer exhibits similar defects, doesn't mean that they aren't defects.

Diablo 2 was a mainly online cooperative game. It didn't require an always online connection to play, and it worked out just fine. Diablo 3 (the third in the same franchise) has nothing on Diablo 2 as far as co-op game play. So Diablo 3 is (from this perspective, if no others) a step backwards. And to no benefit for the consumer (the people PAYING for the thing). I find that a problem.

And I didn't buy an MMO. Diablo 3, despite what you may think, isn't an MMO. Why should I be shackled to the limitations of an MMO. And why should people like you continually keep saying "Play it like an MMO (even though it isn't one) and you won't be bothered by the flaws inherent in MMO games."

I don't buy your "Interpretation" of what an MMO is. Just because there is an element of Online gaming, doesn't make it an MMO. that's like saying anything with 4 wheels is a car. it's shoddy thinking and wholly inaccurate. See my above comments on just a few of the differences between WoW and Diablo franchise as example. You can play Poker online with lots of other folks, and that is in no way an MMO.

You and everyone else keep failing to grasp this very simple concept. It's a matter of why the game requires you to be online. Ubisoft requires me to be online simply because that's their form of DRM. Blizzard requires me to be online, because THE ENTIRE XXX XXXX GAME IS PROCESSED THROUGH A XXXX SERVER.

How is that really so hard to grasp!? Sheesh.

Explaining why something is broken and how it is a poor design, doesn't excuse the design defects. Which apparently YOU don't understand.
 
Last edited:

tedrodai

Golden Member
Jan 18, 2006
1,014
1
0
Explaining why something is broken and how it is a poor design, doesn't excuse the design defects. Which apparently YOU don't understand.

He didn't say anything was broken nor that they used a bad design. That's simply your (and many others') opinion. There are some design aspects I dislike about the game, but online only isn't one of them. It's subjective.

MMOs cost up front for the game then charge monthly except for (usually) a 30 trial period (excluding f2p). Blizzard should have released a free trial available to everyone initially instead of these guest passes.
 
Last edited:

titan131

Senior member
May 4, 2008
260
0
0
It's my thought that Blizzard really likes the idea that you are free to join in on a friend at any point in time. What's kind of amusing (and the reason why I italicized "free") is that by doing this, they forced you to be not-so-free in the way you play the game.
It would be nice if that were true but I'm a bit more cynical of their motives.
MMO is kind of a muddied term as it is. I mean... MMO in itself just means "massively multiplayer online." In some ways, even StarCraft II is a MMO, because everyone from a region goes into a massive pool of players.

While I think a persistent world is pretty much considered very commonplace in MMOs, I guess it's not really a requirement.
Hmm, I get what you're saying, but I think people expect an MMO to have a persistent world where hundreds or thousands of people can play simultaneously. Starcraft II isn't like that because only handful of people can play in a game together and ofc there is no persistent world.

You're right that "massively multiplayer online" doesn't make any mention of persistent worlds, but 8 or 12 players playing in a game together in SC2 doesn't really seem massive. Although instancing in GW with a handful of other players doesn't seem very massive either. I am starting to understand what you're saying. Tbh I think it's possible to really over think this kinda stuff.

My conclusion is: An MMO does need to have a persistent world in order to be considered an MMO and no, I don't know why. That's just the way it is :p
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
He didn't say anything was broken nor that they used a bad design. That's simply your (and many others') opinion. There are some design aspects I dislike about the game, but online only isn't one of them. It's subjective.

Ok, so lets try this. I Believe it is a poor game design for the following reasons:

1. There is a single player element to the game which, when played requires an online connection to a server.
a) This means that anyone without a ready and stable always online connection can't even play the single player element of the game. Loss of otherwise legitimate sales
b) The Servers responsible for play have gone down significantly twice in the first two weeks of launch. Causing even single player gamers to not be able to play. Overall eroding confidence in the companies ability to deliver on sales made in good faith.
c) Causing lag leading to breaks in the game (unnecessary deaths) in a manner that no other single player game has ever had. And to absolutely NO BENEFIT to the consumer. Further eroding confidence and generally annoying players who paid money and can't benefit from their purchase.

2. Maintaining servers so that the players can play the game inperpetuity means an additional outlay of costs in the form of hardware and maintenance costs that are simply unnecessary in a single player environment.
a) Means that the general profit margin for the game is smaller than for other games.
b) Means that higher maintenance costs will be incurred
C) Means that expectations for maintenance will be higher from the consumer side
d) Means that failures are much more public and likely to hurt the company more.

3. 10 years from now, players who put down their hard earned money for Diablo 3 may not be able to play because Blizzard no longer finds it financially supportable to maintain servers for the periodically small group of players
a) Means that players will still be playing Diablo 2 long after they stop playing Diablo 3
b) Means that the longevity value of Diablo 3 will be considered much shorter than Diablo 2 and will cast doubt on future iterations of the franchise.
c) Means that in the anals of game play, the mere design of the game will prevent it from achieving as high a value as previous iterations of the game.

but then that could merely be MY assessment of the defects of the game. And my point was, we ARE saying these are defects. He was claiming that we were stupid because we were not understanding how the game was designed (with the defects as we see them). In other words, ignoring and invalidating our concerns about game elements by explaining "That's just the way it is."

Oh, and 'server going down' is by definition a defect. Or a bug that causes a certain class and equipment combination to kick you out of the game is another non-defensable bug. there is no subjective about this.
 
Last edited:

Qbah

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2005
3,754
10
81
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.

Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.

Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.

Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.

Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...

Yep. Add that to the increasing list. To have a hard core mode that is subject to failure of server side hardware is an epic fail in my book.

that would be like a bug where, not only did the book you just paid good money for fail to load on your Kindle, you can never retrieve it and have to purchase it again. "Sorry folks! DRM at work. Saving YOUR money for you."

Or to put it another way, if you have a problem with a given game, and you do a search on the relevant forums and see no one else posting anything even remotely like the same issue, are you more or less likely to make a stink about it with the publisher? And do you think your case would be stronger or weaker when dealing with them if you could site hundreds of other gamers who had the same issue?
 
Last edited:

tedrodai

Golden Member
Jan 18, 2006
1,014
1
0
but then that could merely be MY assessment of the defects of the game. And my point was, we ARE saying these are defects. He was claiming that we were stupid because we were not understanding how the game was designed (with the defects as we see them). In other words, ignoring and invalidating our concerns about game elements by explaining "That's just the way it is."

I get that, and my disagreeing with some of it doesn't invalidate your perspective. I would say all of those reasons you listed are definitely cons to their game design, but not everyone would agree that they are defects.

For the record I'd have made an offline version or voted in favor of it if given the choice, but only because of some of the reasons you stated--not because I'd ever play offline (I wouldn't), but obviously a bunch of folks would. Also for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the company Blizzard has become...but to date I keep enjoying most of the games they release, at least enough to more than justify the purchase price to me. However, I've never played WoW and never plan to, and I wouldn't buy a Blizzard game just because they made it.

Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.

Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.

Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...

Yep. Add that to the increasing list. To have a hard core mode that is subject to failure of server side hardware is an epic fail in my book.

Well, that aspect is no different than D2 hardcore...just sayin. In single-player offline mode, you'd have no need of a hardcore mode...you could enforce it yourself as a player, or not, and satisfy both camps.
 
Last edited:

titan131

Senior member
May 4, 2008
260
0
0
Here's another kicker... hardcore mode.

Dying cause your character is too weak to face the enemies = OK. The next one will be better prepared. Stronger. You'll take less chances, etc.
Dying cause the server lagged for 2 seconds on a decked out lvl60 character... yea... not fun.

Getting irreversibly killed for a reason that's completely out of your hands is the most annoying thing I can imagine in a game. No amount of gear or skill can help with that...
Well, that aspect is no different than D2 hardcore...just sayin. In single-player offline mode, you'd have no need of a hardcore mode...you could enforce it yourself as a player, or not, and satisfy both camps.
????
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
Well, that aspect is no different than D2 hardcore...just sayin. In single-player offline mode, you'd have no need of a hardcore mode...you could enforce it yourself as a player, or not, and satisfy both camps.

I would disagree that it is no different than D2. You can play D2 multi player in a LAN environment. Now granted, the LAN can still have latency and can even go down. However, the instance and severity of these issues is no where near as much as having to travel to off site servers that may be hosting thousands of other games at the same time. Very different.
 

McLovin

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2007
1,911
58
91
When I went to WonderCon a few months ago, Chris Metzen was there signing autographs for a new Transformers comic that he apparently did some artistic work for. I ask him point blank what the deal was with the Always Online DRM and why Blizzard chose to go that rout. His 1 and only answer? Piracy and that's it.

I'm not saying that's a 100% fool proof argument, but I see his point.

I do however, get upset at the fact that when I play Diablo 3 by myself, that I can lag as if I am playing on a 64 man BF3 server. Effing stupid IMO.
 
Last edited:

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
When I went to WonderCon a few months ago, Chris Metzen was theur signing autographs for a new Transformers comic that he apparently did some artistic work for. I ask him point blank what the deal was with the Always Online DRM and why Blizzard chose to go that rout. His 1 and only answer? Piracy and that's it.

I'm not saying that's a 100% fool proof argument, but I see his point.

I do however, get upset at the fact that when I play Diablo 3 by myself, that I can lag as if I am playing on a 64 man BF3 server. Effing stupid IMO.

Steam has pretty successful DRM and it does NOT require always online mode. Users can play offline, contents can be stored locally, no risk of account being hacked and items/gold stolen.

Yes it's piracy and that's it. But they can prevent piracy doing something different, like selling it on steam. But no, they want 100% of profit to themselves, they want to control online auction to have real money auction eventually to boost their revenue.

Sure it's about piracy but it's also about getting as much money as possible. Well fine, they are entitled to keep their cash, as long as they let us the consumer to enjoy the game without our accounts getting hacked.
 

gladiatorua

Member
Nov 21, 2011
145
0
0
I blame pirates.
Faulty logic.
In like 99% cases pirate's experience of the game is better because if you pirate you don't need to deal with DRM. At all.
The only people who are punished are legit consumers.

One of the biggest reasons for always online DRM is real money AH. To prevent duping of rare items. So for those that don't care about AH all the suffering is for NOTHING!

And GW1 like D3 is CORPG. The difference is it was not advertised as the game that has anything to do with single-player. It has almost no downtimes and it does not require weekly maintenance to apply updates. See update notification in-game, restart your client and you're good to go. Blizzard should learn from this.