Gaming news sites rush to print strawman lies in defense of Diablo 3

[surfsatwerk]

http://www.gamefront.com/why-im-afraid-to-review-diablo-3/

Great article!

 

[Tweak155]

The biggest issue people aren't realizing is that they are making a requirement out of thin air. A Single Player game has 0 requirement to be played offline other than in your mind. Just because YOU don't see a reason for it to be online, doesn't mean therefor it should be able to be played offline. I can think of a few things that being played online provides an advantage for other than DRM.

Thus is the issue. Everyone attributes to online only as strictly a DRM measure. This may or may not be true (I don't know what else Blizz does with this aspect, so I'd assume it is DRM as well), however it is irrelevant. Always online is a requirement of this specific game due to Blizzard's (Activision) choosing. And you have the right to choose not to buy it due to that restriction.

Regardless of the reason, Diablo 3 is an ONLINE GAME.

 

[surfsatwerk]

Regardless of the reason, Diablo 3 is an ONLINE GAME.

Which sucks.

 

[gothamhunter]

WOW's a single player game too; you can decide to not play with anyone else the entire time if you'd like.

 

[Tweak155]

Which sucks.

Yeah I agree. I do think if you only care about playing solo, it sucks that it is online only.

Luckily for me even with D1 and D2, I constantly played online all the time. I'm waiting to pick this one up.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So what? Go play those games then. This never advertised it would have that. You think it is stupid, we get it. But you're not being shorted on something you were told you would have. This is an online game. It is like crying about WoW not having an offline aspect. You'd be stupid to expect it upon buying it.

I already said I wasn't planning on playing Diablo 3; those types of games aren't really my cup of tea. I'm not losing any sleep over Diablo 3 having always-on DRM. But I'm still free to have an opinion about always-on DRM in regards to a singleplayer game, and I'm opposed to it for the reasons I mentioned. Doesn't matter if it happens to be in regards to a game I had no intention of playing; it's a bad business model and it should be done away with.

Not sure how this applies as an argument (if that is what it is)? This is not related to always online DRM, and I stated the only valid complaint is that the servers are down.

You're the one who used the air travel analogy. I was taking it to the next step; if Blizzard's servers fail, your game is dead. Completely, 100% unplayable. And they didn't plan accordingly for the high volume of players, so their servers have had a lot of downtime. And apparently it affects users of ALL their games, not just Diablo 3, so when their servers overload from too many people trying to connect, people playing WoW or Starcraft 2 are just as SOL as people trying to play Diablo 3. That's a pretty major SNAFU for a video game company.

 

[Tweak155]

WOW's a single player game too; you can decide to not play with anyone else the entire time if you'd like.

The only reason I partially disagree with this is because there are things in WoW you just cannot solo.

Having no experience with Diablo 3, though, I'm not sure things like Inferno will be solo-able. If it was, then this separates it from WoW. However, it doesn't change the fact it is an online game.

 

[gothamhunter]

The only reason I partially disagree with this is because there are things in WoW you just cannot solo.

Having no experience with Diablo 3, though, I'm not sure things like Inferno will be solo-able. If it was, then this separates it from WoW. However, it doesn't change the fact it is an online game.

You can choose to not participate in those things that require more people, just as you can choose to not participate in the auction house, trading, and 4 player parties in Diablo 3 which require more people.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The biggest issue people aren't realizing is that they are making a requirement out of thin air. A Single Player game has 0 requirement to be played offline other than in your mind. Just because YOU don't see a reason for it to be online, doesn't mean therefor it should be able to be played offline. I can think of a few things that being played online provides an advantage for other than DRM.

Thus is the issue. Everyone attributes to online only as strictly a DRM measure. This may or may not be true (I don't know what else Blizz does with this aspect, so I'd assume it is DRM as well), however it is irrelevant. Always online is a requirement of this specific game due to Blizzard's (Activision) choosing. And you have the right to choose not to buy it due to that restriction.

Regardless of the reason, Diablo 3 is an ONLINE GAME.

I think this article has an interesting take on that. I don't know if his conclusion is correct, but he contends that the "always online" component of the game is to make sure the auction house functions properly (no duplicate items and the like) since it uses real world money. This represents a way for Blizzard to make money off microtransactions rather than a monthly subscription fee. It's an economic decision rather than a piracy related one (although it manages to address both issues).

 

[Tweak155]

I already said I wasn't planning on playing Diablo 3; those types of games aren't really my cup of tea. I'm not losing any sleep over Diablo 3 having always-on DRM. But I'm still free to have an opinion about always-on DRM in regards to a singleplayer game, and I'm opposed to it for the reasons I mentioned. Doesn't matter if it happens to be in regards to a game I had no intention of playing; it's a bad business model and it should be done away with.



You're the one who used the air travel analogy. I was taking it to the next step; if Blizzard's servers fail, your game is dead. Completely, 100% unplayable. And they didn't plan accordingly for the high volume of players, so their servers have had a lot of downtime. And apparently it affects users of ALL their games, not just Diablo 3, so when their servers overload from too many people trying to connect, people playing WoW or Starcraft 2 are just as SOL as people trying to play Diablo 3. That's a pretty major SNAFU for a video game company.

Paragraph1 response:

Sure, you can have an opinion of always online DRM to a Single Player game, however Diablo 3 is not strictly a single player game so you're giving it a false label. And even if it was, this does not create some magical requirement to have to be able to play offline when it is an online game.


Paragraph2 response:

Blizzard's servers failing is an individual issue from DRM. If the servers fail, you wouldn't be able to play regardless if the servers had active DRM or not. This is what I was saying. Otherwise, thank you for stating the obvious? Yes if an online game's server fails, you can't play that online game.

 

[sigurros81]

Great article!

He's bellyaching because the game is not Diablo 2? How about just write an objective review of Diablo 3 as its own game.

 

[Tweak155]

You can choose to not participate in those things that require more people, just as you can choose to not participate in the auction house, trading, and 4 player parties in Diablo 3 which require more people.

Yes but I'm just highlighting the fact that the 2 aren't exactly equal when considering the objective of a "game". As far as defeating content and "beating the game", they aren't exactly equal. This matters when considering if something can be a single player game.

It comes down to opinion really as to what someone might consider a "required" component of a game. I see the "end" as being able to complete all content, and getting to the "end" is what differentiates it from being single player vs multiplayer.

 

[surfsatwerk]

He's bellyaching because the game is not Diablo 2? How about just write an objective review of Diablo 3 as its own game.

Because it's Diablo 3.

 

[Stuka87]

WRONG!

Diablo 3 is only online cuz blizzard made it that way. It has single player component but you can only access it online, which is stupid. And we are NOT wrong about this.

Thats like saying "The road is only curved because they made it that way. IT COULD HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT!

And yes, you are wrong about this. Its an online game that you can play by yourself. Your argument makes sense for a game that has zero multiplayer elements. This is not the case for Diablo.

Do you also want an offline version of WoW or Guild Wars 2?

 

[Tweak155]

Thats like saying "The road is only curved because they made it that way. IT COULD HAVE BEEN STRAIGHT!

And yes, you are wrong about this. Its an online game that you can play by yourself. Your argument makes sense for a game that has zero multiplayer elements. This is not the case for Diablo.

Do you also want an offline version of WoW or Guild Wars 2?

I'd argue that even a single player game that has zero multiplayer elements can also always be always online. Who knows what the server could be used for?

A good example is that new Japanese game that is like a Skyrim type game where it is only single player, but people can save their helpers (npc's) that you can hire, but you can't interact with someone else.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sure, you can have an opinion of always online DRM to a Single Player game, however Diablo 3 is not strictly a single player game so you're giving it a false label. And even if it was, this does not create some magical requirement to have to be able to play offline when it is an online game.

Well, yes, I agree with the premise that you shouldn't expect to play a multiplayer game offline. But I believe that any game that allows you to play singleplayer, whether as part of a campaign, or against bots, or even in an empty server to run around and look at maps, should allow the player the ability to do so without being connected to the internet. I can load counter-strike and run around an empty map without being connected to the internet, and that game has literally zero singleplayer component. Why shouldn't I be able to do that with a game where you can literally play the entirety of the story alone?

I've had bad experiences with this myself. Assassin's Creed 2, a game which has no multiplayer at all, still had an always-on DRM scheme on the PS3. And that didn't bother me; I could still jump on and play without worrying that a server failure at Activision was going to lose all my progress. But then Sony's Playstation network had a Y2K bug because they thought 2010 was a leap year. Everybody's PS3 rolled over to March 1st but the PSN was expecting February 29th, and no one could connect to PSN. Fine, I won't be able to browse the Sony store.... Except I also couldn't load Assassin's Creed 2, a 100% singleplayer game, because I couldn't be verified through PSN. And that's the problem with always-on DRM. The only option was to wait until March 2nd to play my game. How is that an option? It doesn't make any sense for developers to make DRM schemes that are more intrusive for the legitimate user than the pirate.

I'm not saying that piracy will become an issue for Diablo 3; clearly, if the game has to connect to a server at all times, it should be fairly unhackable. But does it make a better experience for the end user? Absolutely not. If I want to play Goldeneye or Super Mario Bros or Twisted Metal 2, I can load up my old systems, plug them in, turn them on, and everything works immediately. At worst, I'll need to spend a few seconds furiously blowing on a cartridge. But if PSN goes down, there's a handful of games that I flat out will not be able to play, despite only wanting to play singleplayer, despite the game having no multiplayer component to speak of... and that's absurd. It is taking gaming in the wrong direction, and standing up in defense of it is madness.

So, I get what you're saying. And I agree with the idea that an online multiplayer game is obviously only going to work online. But we don't need restrictive DRM schemes that prevent players from using singleplayer functionality that these games already have. That's a major step in the wrong direction for gaming.

 

[RPD]

I think this article has an interesting take on that. I don't know if his conclusion is correct, but he contends that the "always online" component of the game is to make sure the auction house functions properly (no duplicate items and the like) since it uses real world money. This represents a way for Blizzard to make money off microtransactions rather than a monthly subscription fee. It's an economic decision rather than a piracy related one (although it manages to address both issues).

Except they could have just made "off-line" characters that were completely seperate from online or multipler characters just like in the previous games.

I understand the difference between offline and single player, just doesn't mean anyone likes it as its just another wrinkle in gaming, which seems isn't welcomed.

I voted with my wallet, I no longer support Blizzard.

 

[jjj807]

Are people forgetting diablo 1 is now unplayable because it had an offline mode. Duping grandfather swords left and right. Not to mention what still goes on in d2. If the DRM online only garbage helps deter this then thats fine.

So you lose maybe 30 minutes of work,exp,eq finding when you get kicked off, were people really not expecting this? Be so naive to think the game we've been waiting for for over a decade would actually work perfectly? im ok to wait a few more weeks and months for kinks to be worked out. Ive waited this long.......

 

[Axon]

Are people forgetting diablo 1 is now unplayable because it had an offline mode. Duping grandfather swords left and right. Not to mention what still goes on in d2. If the DRM online only garbage helps deter this then thats fine.

So you lose maybe 30 minutes of work,exp,eq finding when you get kicked off, were people really not expecting this? Be so naive to think the game we've been waiting for for over a decade would actually work perfectly? im ok to wait a few more weeks and months for kinks to be worked out. Ive waited this long.......

They're bitching purely to bitch. I'd say most of the complainers re: offline mode would still play online anyway. Plus you knew going in that wasn't an option, so it's hard to cry about it.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Isn't one major reason why the game has to be online because the maps are all generated server side? There are no maps client side for the dungeons when you start a game.

 

[akahoovy]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there is no offline component. How exactly has always-on DRM solved dupes or hacks for multiplayer?

 

[Ferzerp]

Isn't one major reason why the game has to be online because the maps are all generated server side? There are no maps client side for the dungeons when you start a game.

That could have been done locally.

It's more a design choice really. It unifies single and multiplayer (from a development standpoint) and also allows for the same character in both (since "singleplayer" doesn't exist). Yes, it also ensures that unless you can get a copy of the server software, or write an emulator (not trivial, but in a few years, workable (but crap compared to the real thing) emulators will likely exist), you also have to buy it. In that way it's "DRM", but it's no more drm than WoW has DRM. It also means that no servers mean no playing.


There is no "DRM server" that authenticates you to play. You are playing a true client/server game at all times. The game has no single player component other than multiplayer that you don't invite others to join.

 

[DrunkenSano]

It doesn't make it impossible but I'm sure it makes it a lot harder. To allow off-line play, then all item data and map data has to be client side too, I am assuming. Now, with requirement of being online, that stuff can be stored server side and only stuff like item graphics need to be stored client side.

 

[akahoovy]

It doesn't make it impossible but I'm sure it makes it impossible. To allow off-line play, then all item data and map data has to be client side too, I am assuming. Now, with requirement of being online, that stuff can be stored server side and only stuff like item graphics need to be stored client side.

Ahh, that makes sense. If all the character and inventory information is kept serverside, you shouldn't be able to bug or dupe items based on information you send back from your client. Right?

Also, I await a newsworthy theft of real money involving the auction house.

 

[Ferzerp]

I would imagine that much of the item generation/auditing code was reused from WoW as well. Why re-invent the wheel?