Diablo III release date April 17th?

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I'm pretty sure StarCraft II still requires you to log into Battle.Net unless you play as a guest... even for single player.

There's still the option to play as guest, which what more could anyone really ask for (I guess LAN, but I don't care about that)? I'm not locked out of the game when I lose internet connection or battle.net goes down, which is when I tend to want to play single player the most...

 

[Fenixgoon]

There's still the option to play as guest, which what more could anyone really ask for (I guess LAN, but I don't care about that)? I'm not locked out of the game when I lose internet connection or battle.net goes down, which is when I tend to want to play single player the most...

i really hope they do something like this. it will be a damn shame if diablo3 is truly online only.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

i really hope they do something like this. it will be a damn shame if diablo3 is truly online only.

It doesn't look like they're going to back down. You'll probably need to run your own pirate server to play without internet.

 

[slpnshot]

You seem to have missed the point. Having an offline mode provides you resources which make it easier to exploit the online game.

I'm a bit lost here, but if single player accounts/characters are completely stand-alone from online acc/chars like it was in Diablo 2, how will that negatively affect the online market?

 

[Anonemous]

I'm a bit lost here, but if single player accounts/characters are completely stand-alone from online acc/chars like it was in Diablo 2, how will that negatively affect the online market?

He was probably alluding to the fact that it would be easier for hackers to deconstruct the single player code and be able to use that knowledge to dupe/hack/bot the online portion since it may be similar.

 

[slpnshot]

He was probably alluding to the fact that it would be easier for hackers to deconstruct the single player code and be able to use that knowledge to dupe/hack/bot the online portion since it may be similar.

But doesn't online-only games with server side content(WoW, etc) have bot problems as it is? I guess if item duping is a possibility it's understandable, but I always thought that there was some sort of verification process for item drops on the server side that would make each item 'unique.'

It's not that big of a deal to me since I was planning to play mostly online anyhow, I'm just curious what the possible problems are for the offline vs online debate. Sorry if I'm stirring up a bad issue or w/e.

 

[Fenixgoon]

But doesn't online-only games with server side content(WoW, etc) have bot problems as it is? I guess if item duping is a possibility it's understandable, but I always thought that there was some sort of verification process for item drops on the server side that would make each item 'unique.'

It's not that big of a deal to me since I was planning to play mostly online anyhow, I'm just curious what the possible problems are for the offline vs online debate. Sorry if I'm stirring up a bad issue or w/e.

since blizzard is monetizing items with the whole auction house thing (which personally you should only use in game gold to buy items...), they're going to want more protection against duping, botting, etc.

but maybe rather than kill SP altogether, they should think about not having a monetized AH

 

[greenhawk]

but maybe rather than kill SP altogether, they should think about not having a monetized AH

my information might be old, but that is the only AH for hardcore mode IIRC.

Though getting one for general game modes might be interesting, I can see it attracting a lot more bots as the black market will have the higher prices on those servers.

in the end though, it is not in Blizzards interest to allow that, they want something for offering the ability to trade between players.

 

[MrDuma]

i read how must of you are worried about this money for items initiative from Blizz.....
i also say it sucks and really hope there is a limit to all of this

 

[darkewaffle]

But doesn't online-only games with server side content(WoW, etc) have bot problems as it is? I guess if item duping is a possibility it's understandable, but I always thought that there was some sort of verification process for item drops on the server side that would make each item 'unique.'

It's not that big of a deal to me since I was planning to play mostly online anyhow, I'm just curious what the possible problems are for the offline vs online debate. Sorry if I'm stirring up a bad issue or w/e.

It all depends from game to game. The older the game the less likely those kinds of verification layers exist; and there's ways around it. Runes were one of the most widely duped items on D2 because they were extremely rare and because they had a built in mechanism to get around the verification. While 'loose' runes that were 'fake' could up and disappear on you, if you 'permed' them by creating a runeword item then that essentially legitimized them.

Not to mention whether botting or duping is 'worse' I think is more game dependent than anything else; though in the era of 'bound' items I think botting is generally the greater concern since 'binding' puts a pretty hard cap on the items that would be actually 'useful' to dupe.

Regardless, yes, I think less information kept client side is a boon for game security.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

im all for botting... with open pvp and full loot

 

[Coltaine]

I second the full loot PvP, but will there be password protected or hidden instances these botters can hide in?

I was under the impression that the requirement for always online wasn't to eliminate single player play, or curtail any data mining crap you might be able to do so much as it was to ensure Blizzard gets all the sales money due to them...

I can acquire and play D2 (and any other game that doesnt have active online authentication/DRM) through less than legal means without paying Blizzard a dime. I can't do that with SCII, nor will I be able to do that with D3. Thats what I think the real reason for the online only thing is, the lack of single player and the limitation of what data is in the client are just side-effects IMO.

Whats got me most concerned is the lack of infinite space/character slots though, moreso than not being able to play unless I've got an internet connection... I was a hoarder in D2, and I'm thinking that short of making the game boring in terms of items I'll want to go back to my hoarder roots in D3...

 

[darkewaffle]

Well of course it comes down to money, I think the idea was "No offline sucks, they're just being greedy" was being thrown around when there are other valid reasons for online only play.

Also I'm not in the loop at all but I was under the impression the 'games' would function similarly to those in D2, essentially you create your own instance.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I can acquire and play D2 (and any other game that doesnt have active online authentication/DRM) through less than legal means without paying Blizzard a dime. I can't do that with SCII, nor will I be able to do that with D3. Thats what I think the real reason for the online only thing is, the lack of single player and the limitation of what data is in the client are just side-effects IMO.

You can pirate SCII. You can pirate any game currently out that has online authentication. Even WoW can be pirated, and DIII will be piratable... You should really learn what you're talking about before you say something.

That they're doing it to curb pirates doesn't mean they'll be successful at it.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

I second the full loot PvP, but will there be password protected or hidden instances these botters can hide in?

I was under the impression that the requirement for always online wasn't to eliminate single player play, or curtail any data mining crap you might be able to do so much as it was to ensure Blizzard gets all the sales money due to them...

I can acquire and play D2 (and any other game that doesnt have active online authentication/DRM) through less than legal means without paying Blizzard a dime. I can't do that with SCII, nor will I be able to do that with D3. Thats what I think the real reason for the online only thing is, the lack of single player and the limitation of what data is in the client are just side-effects IMO.

Whats got me most concerned is the lack of infinite space/character slots though, moreso than not being able to play unless I've got an internet connection... I was a hoarder in D2, and I'm thinking that short of making the game boring in terms of items I'll want to go back to my hoarder roots in D3...

yeah my comment wont really apply to d3... botters can just run in private games, farm loot and put it in the global ah. works more in mmos

 

[Aikouka]

You can pirate SCII. You can pirate any game currently out that has online authentication. Even WoW can be pirated, and DIII will be piratable... You should really learn what you're talking about before you say something.

That they're doing it to curb pirates doesn't mean they'll be successful at it.

Didn't WoW private servers only become available once someone leaked some old server code?

I guess this comes to a question that we may never know the answer to... how much is Diablo III's server implementation like World of Warcraft? What I mean is that in WoW, almost everything is decided on by the server. I say, "I want to cast Magic Missiles!" and the server says, "Yes, the darkness suffers 9001 damage!" Essentially, the client is really just a dumb client. It knows how to speak the same language as the server, but it doesn't seem to make any decisions itself (that aren't GUI related).

So, if I swing my Sword of a Thousand Truths at a mob in Diablo III, is the server what determines how much damage I deal or if I miss? I believe it's questions like this that will determine how easy it is to mimic the Battle.Net connection in Diablo III.

 

[Geofram]

You can pirate SCII. You can pirate any game currently out that has online authentication. Even WoW can be pirated, and DIII will be piratable... You should really learn what you're talking about before you say something.

That they're doing it to curb pirates doesn't mean they'll be successful at it.

Yes, but curbing is enough. Personally, if I not only had to get a pirate version of the game, but then find a pirate server to connect to so it would work correctly, I'd be a whole lot less likely to even play it.

Nothing stops piracy completely. All they have to do is make it a big enough PITA and they'll stop the 'casual' pirates, or get them to buy, and I think that's all they want to do.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Yes, but curbing is enough. Personally, if I not only had to get a pirate version of the game, but then find a pirate server to connect to so it would work correctly, I'd be a whole lot less likely to even play it.

Nothing stops piracy completely. All they have to do is make it a big enough PITA and they'll stop the 'casual' pirates, or get them to buy, and I think that's all they want to do.

The problem comes when you make it a pita to legitimately play and drove away more paying customers than pirates that probably aren't going to buy it anyway.

 

[thespyder]

The problem comes when you make it a pita to legitimately play and drove away more paying customers than pirates that probably aren't going to buy it anyway.

Um.??? Pirates aren't going to buy the game. That's why they are Pirates.

But you are both right. "Nothing" is going to stop theft and piracy 100% short of not making the game in the first place. But DRM is "Supposed" to be like the lock on your front door or the alarm system on your house. It is intended to be enough of a deterant to prevent casual theft. In that DRM should make it hard for the casual thief.

However, the point at which DRM impacts actual paying customers to the point that they aren't willing to purchase anymore, is a fine line to define. My personal opinion is that most companies get fairly close. Some go over. And certainly any time there is any impact at all, a segment of the community is very vocal and negative about it. Making it all the worse.

This particular scenario is troubling to me as I don't want my "Solo" game to require online and server connection. I am thinking about not purchasing for that reason alone. And I think that is the acid test (For me). In this instance, if it concludes that you need to be online for a solo game, i probably won't buy. So Blizzard is running the risk of losing at least one sale.

They have to decide how important the live auction house is to their business model. How much extra revenue they are planning on bringing in because of it and compare that to how much revenue they may potentially lose from customers like me. Personally I think it will be a losing proposition for them.

 

[lupi]

vast majority of pirates would have never purchased in the first place which is why all those lost income statements and absolutely wortheless.

 

[Skott]

It is not will they pirate but more like how long will they (pirates) take to successfully pirate the game? It is going to happen. Just a matter of time. I'm not saying it is okay for them to do, I dont support it, but I do know it will happen eventually.

I too was looking forward to playing a stand alone D3 game since I have no interest in playing with others. After hearing all the talk though I'm not sure this will be the game I hoped it might be. I'll have to wait for release and see what is true and what is not and then decide.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Um.??? Pirates aren't going to buy the game. That's why they are Pirates.

But you are both right. "Nothing" is going to stop theft and piracy 100% short of not making the game in the first place. But DRM is "Supposed" to be like the lock on your front door or the alarm system on your house. It is intended to be enough of a deterant to prevent casual theft. In that DRM should make it hard for the casual thief.

However, the point at which DRM impacts actual paying customers to the point that they aren't willing to purchase anymore, is a fine line to define. My personal opinion is that most companies get fairly close. Some go over. And certainly any time there is any impact at all, a segment of the community is very vocal and negative about it. Making it all the worse.

This particular scenario is troubling to me as I don't want my "Solo" game to require online and server connection. I am thinking about not purchasing for that reason alone. And I think that is the acid test (For me). In this instance, if it concludes that you need to be online for a solo game, i probably won't buy. So Blizzard is running the risk of losing at least one sale.

They have to decide how important the live auction house is to their business model. How much extra revenue they are planning on bringing in because of it and compare that to how much revenue they may potentially lose from customers like me. Personally I think it will be a losing proposition for them.

Companies try to stop pirates under the assumption that those who are deterred will buy the game. The really intrusive ones tend to be more to stop the second hand market under the guise of anti-piracy.

I agree/understand you though. Personally, they're walking a fine line with me. If I didn't consider DIII inherently multiplayer, I would definitely be out. I don't think people are wrong for not buying it because of what they're doing either. My great love for Blizzard at least is over; I'm not buying collectors editions from them anymore, which is something I've done with every release since they started them (DII-Cata).

 

[Wardawg1001]

vast majority of pirates would have never purchased in the first place which is why all those lost income statements and absolutely wortheless.

I am tired of this statement being thrown around as a reason companies shouldn't bother to implement some form of protection for their investments. There is no data to back it up, its pure speculation. If you extrapolate your statement out to the extreme case where somehow it was literally impossible to pirate ANY game EVER, then what you are essentially saying is the vast majority of pirates would just stop playing games altogether, and I think that is an absurd conclusion.

The much more likely case is that every person has the ability to pirate a game, and each person makes the decision to pirate or not pirate based on their morals, their financial situation, and the difficulty of obtaining a pirated copy of the game. People who refuse to pirate games on a moral basis can be discounted for this purpose, as they are paying customers. Then theres the people who simply can't afford games (I pirated a few games back in my teen years simply because I had no income). If pirating became impossible, almost all of these people would not purchase the game legally. I would guess these people don't make up a large percentage of piraters because most people who can afford computers can also afford the games. Then theres the people who are morally okay with pirating, and because of the ease of pirating games they choose to do that instead of pay for it. My guess is that these people make up the vast majority of piraters, and if pirating suddenly became completely impossible for some reason, many of these people would become paying customers.

Obviously this is all hypothetical as well, I don't have any data either. In my opinion though, the idea that the 'vast majority' of piraters would simply give up gaming altogether if it suddenly became impossible, holds no water whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support screwing over your paying customers by using some intrusive and ultimately ineffective DRM mechanism, but the idea that game companies should just give up and stop trying is ludicrous. It will take time, but somebody is going to figure out the magic recipe that allows their loyal paying customers to enjoy the game hassle free, yet be enough of a deterrent to pirating that most of the people who would consider it just won't want to deal with the hassle. If they don't keep working at it though, then it will never happen.

 

[lupi]

WSJ seems to think it's a good statement.

 

[Grooveriding]

With the amount of total trash released these days, I have no issue with people who 'try' before they buy, so long as if they keep playing they do buy.

There are countries where it is legal to download copyright material for personal use so long as it is not for profit or exhibition as well, or it is a grey area that is not defined clearly and is left alone. Frankly considering you cannot return opened software, which is outrageous from a customer satisfaction pov, I have no issue if someone wants to try it out rather than getting ripped off with a ripe turd.

Back to Blizzard and Diablo 3, they are getting worse every day. The latest plan is they are now considering putting a real money AH into HC as well, whereas before they said they were not. Greedy mother fuckers just can't stop bleeding their gameplay for every penny they can.