EA Announces Expansion of Its Always Online DRM Policy

[thespyder]

YAEAT

It'll be nice when the next blind hate-train leaves the station, this is getting tiresome.

I think you just outed yourself as an EA Fanboi. I guess statistically speaking there had to be one somewhere.

But instead of making blanket off topic disparaging comments, got anything to contribute in defense of the new policy?

i personally hate this online crapola. I have no problem with having to go online once to register/authenticate the game but pisses me off royally that i can not play a single player game without first having to be online.

point 1. there was a time my internet was down. no problem i thinks. just play some single player games. but no i cant play the game.

point 2. just recently i wanted to play the PC version of Skyrim. But i got the message from Steam that the game is not available. try again later.

but its not all bad i guess. game gets updated when new patches come out similar to a mmog.

More or less exactly. I travel a fair amount and so end up in hotels a lot. Hotels CHARGE for internet by time and data amount. Means either zero online gaming or I pay through the nose. Also, no online gaming on the plane. And no online gaming in the airport. So all of the places I am sitting around bored out of my skull and with LOADS of gaming time. No game.... Which shouldn't be the case for single player games.

Also, where my parents live is a bit rural. Means spotty cell reception and they have no reason what so ever to have internet (they are in their 80s). So, if I stay there, no online gaming.

Neither of these situations would be a problem for off line single player. But now no Diablo 3 or other games in the same model, like EA is now saying all of their games are going to be. So that will include DA3, presumably. Which, after DA2, I wasn't really thinking about, but this kills it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't mind blizzard's drm because they are using your connection to further improve the game. Battle.net is about connecting people, not just drm. I don't mind steam as drm because it is mostly unobtrusive and seamless, and it often is useful to find good deals. But I won't ever put up with always online drm, especially from EA because I believe they won't stop at just the drm, they will try to leverage their service to upsell other products, and probably try to squeeze every penny out of their customers if steam didn't exist (how about 2.50 per game download service fee?).

Making a few changes to make their drm look a little better won't change a thing when I've seen EA wreck franchise after franchise and implement as customer-repugnant of a system as they could in Securom. EA's games aren't worth buying. I won't pirate their games either, but I can see why people would.

I hate to tell you, but as far as I can tell, Diablo 3 IS always on line DRM.

At least Steam and Origin (with some titles anyway) allow single player off line play.
I do agree with you that I hate always on line DRM more than anything, but that seems to be Blizzard's thing now. I was really looking forward to D3, but the on line reqiurement, the terrible graphics, and the auction house implementation make me seriously question purchasing the game.

 

[thespyder]

I hate to tell you, but as far as I can tell, Diablo 3 IS always on line DRM.

Diablo 3 is always online. That has been made perfectly clear by Blizzard. And it is pretty much the only reason why I won't be buying it. Shame when always online is a deal breaker for a game that has been hotly anticipated as an installment to a much loved franchise for 10 + years.

 

[Pia]

Amount of people who want to play dress-up with their FPS dude while on bus to work: 0

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/06/19

 

[QueBert]

why don't they just come up with a usb hardware dongle solution? I know they don't ever use these on games, but there are super popular music studio apps that are years old and still haven't been cracked. And they doubtfully ever will. This would get rid of piracy and would force a company like EA to shut up as to why a game didn't sell.

 

[busydude]

Somewhat relevant.. from reddit.

 

[Cerb]

The point is, if you read between the lines, this initiative has almost nothing to do with Piracy. And everything to do with upselling and potential profits they are anticipating from after market, and cross platform content.

Ah, now those two middle sentences make sense. I'm the kind to wait for GOTY/gold/etc. editions, and make a point to not buy games with DLC-only expansions. So, that kind of rambling doing this and doing that with odd devices was too foreign to my mindset, at first. I still don't get why anyone would play half a game on their phone, though, unless it's a slow RPG.

The mere fact that they are hosting servers enough to cover every single player proves this point. it is not cost efficient to do so unless they are anticipating additional revenue. Even considering declining usage over time, the cost to maintain acceptable levels of service in perpetuity will eventually outweigh the profit margin. So they HAVE to be anticipating additional revenue from some source. it's simple math.

IMV, it's not cost efficient regardless of expectations of revenue. They could keep a network-wide DB of active keys, tied to a user (no install count BS), with limits on concurrent use, all player/character/game/region data stored on the servers, and have a system that will need an order of magnitude or two less to run and maintain, than one that actually keeps portions of the game, "in the cloud." They could still have all their nickel and diming, upselling, and what-have-you, yet also still support servers running for older less-played games at a low cost.

Even hypothetically accepting the extensive DRM, it seems like serious mismanagement of resources, to me. Only MMOs should require any meaningful amount of support costs, as they age, unless (a) the servers are doing too much, and/or (b) they didn't plan well for the future, and can't load-balance amongst different games. My bet is on b for the recent shutdowns, and a combination of both for near-future EA games, once they get a couple years old.

 

[Anubis]

Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work. On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone. Here’s the thing: when he gets home to play again on his 360 that evening, all those achievements and upgrades will be alive in his game. We’re very focused on transforming all of our brands into these online universes. That gives the consumer full control of how and when they play in a rich world of content.

i dont care about any of that

 

[thespyder]

IMV, it's not cost efficient regardless of expectations of revenue. They could keep a network-wide DB of active keys, tied to a user (no install count BS), with limits on concurrent use, all player/character/game/region data stored on the servers, and have a system that will need an order of magnitude or two less to run and maintain, than one that actually keeps portions of the game, "in the cloud." They could still have all their nickel and diming, upselling, and what-have-you, yet also still support servers running for older less-played games at a low cost.

Even hypothetically accepting the extensive DRM, it seems like serious mismanagement of resources, to me. Only MMOs should require any meaningful amount of support costs, as they age, unless (a) the servers are doing too much, and/or (b) they didn't plan well for the future, and can't load-balance amongst different games. My bet is on b for the recent shutdowns, and a combination of both for near-future EA games, once they get a couple years old.

Clearly it isn't cost effective even in the short run. Profit margins on game development are slim enough without adding the cost of maintaining an on sight secure server to accommodate every single player of the game in-perpetuity. They are effectively shaving the continued operating costs off of any future products. And the only way to off set that is either (a) increased cost of games, (b) charging an ongoing fee to play or (c) additional tangential revenue such as post release DLC.

Makes you wonder why they seem to think it will work.

 

[Cerb]

Clearly it isn't cost effective even in the short run. Profit margins on game development are slim enough without adding the cost of maintaining an on sight secure server to accommodate every single player of the game in-perpetuity. They are effectively shaving the continued operating costs off of any future products. And the only way to off set that is either (a) increased cost of games, (b) charging an ongoing fee to play or (c) additional tangential revenue such as post release DLC.

Makes you wonder why they seem to think it will work.

Maybe they can guarantee lower long-term maintenance costs than just supporting games forever (by cutting less-used game services every year or two), and short-sighted shareholders like that idea, versus something that might actually take 15-30 minutes to explain to business people? It seems like a lot of added cost for very little gain, outside of games that are either 99% or 100% online by nature, and a new chance to alienate customers, again, in a few years (even for those online-by-nature games).

Meanwhile, I have a hard time believing that a quality network server platform, made to handle game servers from a given generation, would cost too much up front, relative to current costs. A dynamic server farm, even with manual load balancing, is not rocket science. It may take a highly paid consultant or two, and some planning and care, but if they know what they're doing, they can command their price by having learned from failures over the years. Once done, the first time, niggling issues and future features can then define the next generation, which some games will be upgraded to, and others put on smaller internal networks over time, and the newer system then gets a translation layer to talk to the older system(s), for a nearly seamless experience at the user end. As the next gen comes in, the old gen are moved to fewer and fewer servers, eventually to the point of sharing oversold virtual hosts. All maintained the same way, by the same people. With current player info on the servers, there won't be such a need to run portions of the game itself on the servers, either (again, except for games that are internet played by nature, such as MMOs and competitive RTS).

Or, in fewer words, I'm thinking that an ounce of prevention can beat a pound of cure, and tens of pounds of amputated limbs.

 

[coloumb]

That said, I don't know how it would be possible to pirate a game that stores crucial game elements in an off site server, and retain the same level of satisfaction as you would with a legitimate copy.. Diablo 3 for instance, will supposedly store monsters, loot and characters in Blizzard's server.

So this might finally be the nail in the coffin.. :sneaky:

I don't think nails will be anywhere near the coffin for most people. I think the general public will just accept this form of DRM as it will probably be advertised with some sort of perks to justify their reasons. I personally loathe DRM schemes but I do understand why they are in place.

I think those who live out in the boonies or travel a lot are becoming a smaller part of the equation with regards to profits. They probably represent such a small part of the overall scheme of things that it's just more profitable to have always on DRM - it protects their product from "estimated" theft.

On the flip side - they can't blame piracy if the game fails to meet expected/projected profits. This is where the gamers can push back and say "See - YOUR games actually do suck!" and maybe...just maybe they'll realize that always on DRM isn't such a good idea after all.

 

[darkewaffle]

I think you just outed yourself as an EA Fanboi. I guess statistically speaking there had to be one somewhere.

But instead of making blanket off topic disparaging comments, got anything to contribute in defense of the new policy?

That's a pretty profound assumption you're making there. A year ago it was Bioware threads because of DA2, six months ago it was the 'consolization' threads, now ME3's ending has catalyzed "EA" threads as what's hot. I'm looking forward to the next one if only so we can quit seeing the same thing repeated over and over and over.

Blanket disparaging comments in an EA thread? Unheard of.

I don't really care about the new policy, the only EA game I play is SWTOR which is always online as it's simply the nature of the beast. But I can say that there's been a push from the community for integrating SWTOR with mobile games/apps that would allow you to send your companions out for missions through, say, a phone or a tablet which is exactly the sort of idea this policy supports.

Blizzard has put out it's own official "Auction House" and "Guild Chat" apps allowing access to their 'universe' remotely; I have no idea how popular they are but I'd imagine there must be an audience for it if Blizzard thought it was worth the time. Again, it's these kinds of ideas that EA is looking to execute.

Of course it integrates most cleanly with an MMO experience, but how you integrate it with a single player game is just a matter of imagination. I could see "Madden Remote" allowing players to progress their franchise mode or integrate with a 'fantasy football' experience of sorts. Simcity could allow remote city management. Sims... well I've never actually played Sims but I'd wager much of what you do in that game could be done through a mobile version as well, creating a more 'persistent' experience. Need For Speed could integrate what so many mobile games do already; car tuning, AI racing, etc. There's a lot of possibilities.

It gets a bit murkier what you could do with games that don't have so much native 'micromanagement' already in them, like BF3. But it could create some sort of mobile simulation for the UAV or vehicles or tactical simulations testing your 'aptitude'. Upon completion these could earn you experience to increase your rank/title or maybe unlock a 10% increase in 'experience earned' for the next 3 matches you play, something like that.

On one hand you can say they're just propping up their 'always online' plans (admittedly though many of these games are not/will not be 'always' online) but on the other hand you can also say they're giving their legitimate customers access to perks and benefits to reward/compensate them and to give them something that pirates can't really pirate.

What it sounds to me like they're essentially proposing is the "EA Cloud". But, unlike what the Steam Cloud does currently, they want to develop the idea further by allowing you to still 'add' to your cloud even while outside the core game.

 

[thespyder]

That's a pretty profound assumption you're making there. A year ago it was Bioware threads because of DA2, six months ago it was the 'consolization' threads, now ME3's ending has catalyzed "EA" threads as what's hot. I'm looking forward to the next one if only so we can quit seeing the same thing repeated over and over and over.

Blanket disparaging comments in an EA thread? Unheard of.

I don't really care about the new policy, the only EA game I play is SWTOR which is always online as it's simply the nature of the beast. But I can say that there's been a push from the community for integrating SWTOR with mobile games/apps that would allow you to send your companions out for missions through, say, a phone or a tablet which is exactly the sort of idea this policy supports.

Um, yeah. See.... Hmm. where to begin.

OK. So DA2 was as a result of EA buying out Bioware. And the whole ME3 debacle was also post EA buy out. So both of those WERE EA.

And you claim not to play any EA games, yet you have posted about playing DA2 and liking it. So you have played EA games. And I bet you have played others and merely not been aware that they were EA.

As for not caring about the new policy, great. You don't have too. But to disparage those who DO without even (apparently) reading what they have to say merely because it doesn't impact you seems pretty and small minded to me. And that is what your statement was, a blanket disparagement of anyone who posted in this thread (and the other that you likewise disparaged that were discussing EA). And as far as I am concerned, most of the posters in this thread have posted cogent and well thought out arguments against the policy. So these aren't blanket rants against the tyranny that is EA as your statements seem to indicate. They are real and valid concerns.

So I don't think claiming you to be an EA fanboi was very far off. Of course, the alternative is that you merely are oblivious to others (as evidenced by your posting after apparently failing to read the posts you are flaming). Or that you are merely a troll, posting inflammatory remarks with the intent to incite flame wars (which is against the ToS). So take your pick.

Just my two cents.

Back on topic, yeah. Even if they are only spending a marginal amount to maintain servers ongoing and in-perpetuity, they are still cutting profits. I kind of wonder what, if anything, has been shared with share holders. And if any of them actually read any of these threads. Might be an eye opener.

 

[darkewaffle]

Um, yeah. See.... Hmm. where to begin.

OK. So DA2 was as a result of EA buying out Bioware. And the whole ME3 debacle was also post EA buy out. So both of those WERE EA.

And you claim not to play any EA games, yet you have posted about playing DA2 and liking it. So you have played EA games. And I bet you have played others and merely not been aware that they were EA.

The fads come and go. A few months down the road it'll probably be something about D3 or GW2 or the BG remake or whatever it is that becomes the villain of the month; which personally I will find preferable simply because then we won't have to deal with every couple posts mindlessly reiterating "burn EA" or giving us their stale take on why they didn't like the ME3 ending.

Of course I've played more than one EA game, I figured that much was obvious as everyone probably has. Kind of why I used the present tense rather than the past though, as I doubt they will retrofit games with this sort of treatment, the audience simply isn't there. This is a direction almost solely for future titles with SWTOR as a noted exception due to how well it would fit and it's MMO lifespan.

As for not caring about the new policy, great. You don't have too. But to disparage those who DO without even (apparently) reading what they have to say merely because it doesn't impact you seems pretty and small minded to me. And that is what your statement was, a blanket disparagement of anyone who posted in this thread (and the other that you likewise disparaged that were discussing EA). And as far as I am concerned, most of the posters in this thread have posted cogent and well thought out arguments against the policy. So these aren't blanket rants against the tyranny that is EA as your statements seem to indicate. They are real and valid concerns.

They have, have they? That seems kind a strange way to describe the blunt "Down with EA" and the "EA should crash" sentiments expressed in the very first replies (and throughout the thread and generally any thread as soon as EA's name pops up lol), especially given that anyone who actually read the article would notice it's not really about the DRM that the valid complaints actually addressed. Which a few other people have already pointed out.

And speaking of people not being impacted, there have also been a few saying "I don't buy EA anyway" who have called it a non-issue. But that's still suitably negative I presume? So no tongue lashing?

I get that people like to be able to play offline and at multiple computers, which I think is the primary issue with DRM in general. However, that's not addressed at all and really none of the ideas of an 'integrated' experience have any bearing on that. If you want to take part in it then yes it is implicit that you will need online access at least intermittently because otherwise there's no way for that data to sync to you or to reach you, that's all there is to it.

Back on topic, yeah. Even if they are only spending a marginal amount to maintain servers ongoing and in-perpetuity, they are still cutting profits. I kind of wonder what, if anything, has been shared with share holders. And if any of them actually read any of these threads. Might be an eye opener.

You do realize that share-holders first mentality is the kind of thing most people hold against EA, right? And now you're advocating it?


The author of the article wants EA to encourage legitimate buyers instead of fight pirates, but to me that sounds like what this whole idea aims to do. The whole proposition is to create more value in a game by giving paying customers access to something the pirates wouldn't have access to. And they know users don't just want a 'mini game' with a label slapped on it, they want something that actually ties into the game itself so that it has some actual gravity to it.

 

[paperfist]

Wait, I already have to be logged in to play BF3 online and if I log into that account from somewhere else my kit is always the same. What's the difference?

 

[Mem]

I was thinking about the good old days when games were on floppy and no codes to enter,nowadays half the games you need a net connection just to play and register,piracy will always be there and its not something any company even EA can get rid of.


I understand game companies protecting their interest but there has to be a balance between them and the consumer/gamer that buy their products.
EA well know what consumers/gamers think of DRM and even that and whatever EA do won't stop piracy completely.
Anybody that thinks EA and their DRM policy has nothing to do with piracy is blind.

 

[paperfist]

I was thinking about the good old days when games were on floppy and no codes to enter,nowadays half the games you need a net connection just to play and register,piracy will always be there and its not something any company even EA can get rid of.

What do you mean? Back then you had to turn to page 62, find the ship with as mast and type in the code under it.

 

[thespyder]

The fads come and go. … which personally I will find preferable simply because then we won't have to deal with every couple posts mindlessly reiterating "burn EA" or giving us their stale take on why they didn't like the ME3 ending.

Some fad. People have been talking about poor practices by EA for several years now. It was also voted the worst company in the US not too long ago, beating out Bank of America. Good luck with it going away.

They have, have they? That seems kind a strange way to describe the blunt "Down with EA" and the "EA should crash" sentiments expressed in the very first replies (and throughout the thread and generally any thread as soon as EA's name pops up lol), especially given that anyone who actually read the article would notice it's not really about the DRM that the valid complaints actually addressed. Which a few other people have already pointed out.

And speaking of people not being impacted, there have also been a few saying "I don't buy EA anyway" who have called it a non-issue. But that's still suitably negative I presume? So no tongue lashing?

And so in your estimation, every single post in this thread is of this caliber? And every single thread that questions EA policies is useless and worthless on the face of it? Your statement was quite blanket to that exact effect. Seems you are guilty of the attitudes you are disparaging. As far as tongue lashing, I am having a reasonable conversation. Not denigrating anyone and everyone who has an opinion other than yours.

I get that people like to be able to play offline and at multiple computers, which I think is the primary issue with DRM in general. However, that's not addressed at all and really none of the ideas of an 'integrated' experience have any bearing on that. If you want to take part in it then yes it is implicit that you will need online access at least intermittently because otherwise there's no way for that data to sync to you or to reach you, that's all there is to it.

Please feel free to re-read any or all of the posts prior. Once you have a full understanding of the issue (which you clearly don’t from that paragraph), let’s discuss again. Consumers are not saying they want or need multi-platform, EA is saying they want to forcing multi-platform regardless of if there is a demand for it. This is being seen as an excuse to implement their draconian always online DRM strategy.

You do realize that share-holders first mentality is the kind of thing most people hold against EA, right? And now you're advocating it?

Yeah. So EA is a company. So long as they have/make money, they are not going to listen to a few disgruntled outlier gamers who post online. They will listen to share-holders as that is where their operating capital comes from, and ultimately, given enough of them being unhappy, where their jobs end. Given that it was already suggested positively in the thread that they may not know what was going on, it seemed reasonable to suggest. But then, read before post.

The author of the article wants EA to encourage legitimate buyers instead of fight pirates, but to me that sounds like what this whole idea aims to do. The whole proposition is to create more value in a game by giving paying customers access to something the pirates wouldn't have access to. And they know users don't just want a 'mini game' with a label slapped on it, they want something that actually ties into the game itself so that it has some actual gravity to it.

The idea adds very little consumer value and a whole lot of investor value, which was the entire point of the article. But again, please feel free to read people’s posts on the subject rather than assuming from your own perspective.

 

[Mem]

What do you mean? Back then you had to turn to page 62, find the ship with as mast and type in the code under it.

Before then when you just had to worry about how much expanded memory you had to run it in DOS,what you stated was the one of the first steps towards anti-piracy with key codes etc...

 

[thespyder]

What do you mean? Back then you had to turn to page 62, find the ship with as mast and type in the code under it.

LOL. I remember one game (Pool of Radiance: Gold box) where you had this wheel. You had to translate the elven runes and line them up on the wheel to get the secret code. I think I still have the wheel somewhere. It got laminated somewhere along the way so it would last.

Best DRM I have memory of. Because it had relevance to the subject matter. Of course, it was easy as pie to copy, but still. It is probably just as effective as DRM of today.

 

[Madmick]

If each play server keeps a list of activated keys, or goes to verify before allowing a player on, and limits concurrent activated users on the total network, they could remove regular online play for 99% of pirates. If they use online DRM, and aren't doing something like this...well, there is no lower bound to stupidity.

I thought game pirates were only capable of accessing single player? How are they accessing online multiplayer? I've been on Xbox 360 the past five years, so I'm not familiar with how online PC multiplayer works these days (outside of WoW which I played on my MacBook Pro). I simply maintained an Xbox Live account.

I remember reading in the news when they terminated 500,000 Xbox Live accounts for modded Xboxes a few years ago. I didn't comb that article, but it sounded like these modders were forced to maintain legitimate Xbox Live accounts, but they were simply stealing the games, and Microsoft performed a software sweep of connected Live accounts to determine who was modding. Am I misremembering? Were they stealing Live service, too?

 

[Kev]

Unfortunately EA servers are powered by hamsters running on a wheel.

I feel like I've spent over 20 hours of my life staring at a "Connecting to EA Servers" screen.

 

[Cerb]

I thought game pirates were only capable of accessing single player?

Multiplayer access varies by game and/or publisher. Use of centralized publisher-controlled servers is largely done entirely for the reason of limiting access, as well. Can't hate them for that, but can hate them for marginalizing mods in the process, and that control being an avenue to kill perfectly good games.

I was mainly opining that with good planning (long-term thinking and all that), they could have their cake, eat it too, and still provide support for older games at a low cost, rather than shutting them off. My readings of their recent actions and near-future plans reeks of poor support due to poor planning.

 

[darkewaffle]

Some fad. People have been talking about poor practices by EA for several years now. It was also voted the worst company in the US not too long ago, beating out Bank of America. Good luck with it going away.

And Moot was voted the most influential person in the world for 2009. Internet polls are often gamed as well as demographically biased. Actually after EA "won" there were a fair few comments, even here, about how the 'angry nerds' (as it were) lacked perspective.

And so in your estimation, every single post in this thread is of this caliber? And every single thread that questions EA policies is useless and worthless on the face of it? Your statement was quite blanket to that exact effect. Seems you are guilty of the attitudes you are disparaging. As far as tongue lashing, I am having a reasonable conversation. Not denigrating anyone and everyone who has an opinion other than yours.

No, those are your words, as usual. Just like you assumed I was "disparaging" others' opinions right off the bat.

I think that complaints against EA are sometimes valid. But I also think that far too often people see the words "Electronic Arts" and have this irrational knee-jerk reaction (hence the mention of 'blind hate-train'); the evidence of that alone is right here in this thread as there are quite clearly a number of folks who did nothing more than read the thread title. Which, while from the original article, is inflammatory and for the most part false, as if you read the article it is quite plainly not about DRM. The author wants it to be, of that there can be no doubt, but as a result the article is quite slanted.

Please feel free to re-read any or all of the posts prior. Once you have a full understanding of the issue (which you clearly don’t from that paragraph), let’s discuss again. Consumers are not saying they want or need multi-platform, EA is saying they want to forcing multi-platform regardless of if there is a demand for it. This is being seen as an excuse to implement their draconian always online DRM strategy.

Where is the evidence for anything being forced? Where are the words "must" or "compulsory" or "necessary" or anything like that found in this context? A few other sites actually reported on this interview and, not surprisingly, didn't even mention DRM. Not once.

Yeah. So EA is a company. So long as they have/make money, they are not going to listen to a few disgruntled outlier gamers who post online. They will listen to share-holders as that is where their operating capital comes from, and ultimately, given enough of them being unhappy, where their jobs end. Given that it was already suggested positively in the thread that they may not know what was going on, it seemed reasonable to suggest. But then, read before post.

You're missing the point. The idea is you're advocating for exactly what many people vilify EA for, serving the share holders first and making everything about the bottom line. You can't have it both ways, wanting a company to put the customers first and at the same time endorsing shareholder power to cut operations.for the sake of profits.

The idea adds very little consumer value and a whole lot of investor value, which was the entire point of the article. But again, please feel free to read people’s posts on the subject rather than assuming from your own perspective.

It adds a whole lot of investor value and yet you've been railing about how it won't be profitable and think the shareholders (investors) should be made aware of it? That's completely illogical.

Not to mention, consumer value is a highly subjective and personal matter. I'd probably get some use out of a mobile SWTOR application myself. And as long as there's people who want something or will use something, there's value in it. And there's surely some audience for mobile tie-ins; Blizzard and Valve are both pushing it as well.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Unfortunately EA servers are powered by hamsters running on a wheel.

I feel like I've spent over 20 hours of my life staring at a "Connecting to EA Servers" screen.

For the same amount of time I get stuck in "connecting to EA servers" in Mass Effect 3 before the main menu, I would have logged in and loaded right into the game in the Diablo 3 Beta from desktop.

Small wonder they are losing customers and revenue left and right when they don't even know what this word called "accessibility" in 2012 means.