This just in...

Re: This just in...

@Nightfish:

That's an obvious argument, which I think is pretty much false. I mean, what, am I to believe that there are hundreds people out there that were going to download the game illegally, but thought "Oh crap! What about anni? Let me spend $50 so I can get that charm on b.net!" Seriously?

Now I imagine that there are people out there who were going to illegally download the game, but decided to spend $50 so that they can play on b.net. I just don't think ubers come into this equation at all. If someone is happy to download the game illegally, they'll be fine with playing ubers with different AI from a sub-standard mod.

======

I think I'm not making my argument very clearly at all. So let me try again.

Making D3 online only is a good business decision for Blizzard. There are two issues here:
- Piracy and DRM: That issue can be solved just as easily by having to stay online, or be online once an hour, whatever. The content can stay on my HDD.
- Money from transactions. If people have the option to play SP, then they are less likely to spend real money online in trades.

What annoys me slightly is the hypocrisy. It's about the money. D3 is online only because it will make more money this way. They can say that out loud, people will still buy D3. But, that'd be a bad PR. What annoys me more is that people use the PR arguments as if they had merit and weren't just a smokescreen. They are.
 
Re: This just in...

Let's not forget this part: (concerning weapon swap)
Jay Wilson said:
Mostly we took it out because the only examples we could come up with of how people used it were somewhat exploitive. Most frequently people used it by accident and wondered where the freak my weapons went. So it didn’t seem a useful feature for anyone but a very small portion of the audience that used it to swap items for magic find purposes, which seemed not a great super fun reason to swap weapons. There were probably some other uses, which I’m sure I’ll be reminded of in the forums.
Click to expand...
I can't help but think "exploitative" = useful in SP.

I don't know what this Diablo 3 is going to be about, but without stat/skill allocation or weapon swap, it sounds like something pretty damn boring to me. What is the point going to be? The story?? :rolf:
 
Re: This just in...

Greebo said:
@Nightfish:

That's an obvious argument, which I think is pretty much false. I mean, what, am I to believe that there are hundreds people out there that were going to download the game illegally, but thought "Oh crap! What about anni? Let me spend $50 so I can get that charm on b.net!" Seriously?

Now I imagine that there are people out there who were going to illegally download the game, but decided to spend $50 so that they can play on b.net. I just don't think ubers come into this equation at all. If someone is happy to download the game illegally, they'll be fine with playing ubers with different AI from a sub-standard mod.
.
Click to expand...

You're not getting it. Not my point, anyway. You seem assume that what you're missing in the hypothetical cracked D3 is along the lines of what you are missing in D2 SP vs b.net right now. I am assuming that this is far, far from the truth.

Even if we take your assumption as a baseline, how about I say the entire AI runs on the server? No monster does anything unless it gets orders from the server. Still sound like a fun game? Not so much, does it? And I doubt it'll be just this tiny bit that is server side. I mean, why be half-assed about it if you're giving SP the finger anyway? If you plan for this from the start, you can make offline play pretty much impossible, I'm sure.

Think about it, if significant parts of the game run on the server it's not a matter of flicking a switch and you're on SP. I doubt editing a few text files a la RWM will do the trick here.

What I assume is that a cracked D3 is going to be similar to a cracked WoW. I never played WoW at all, but I've heard stories. These so called pirate servers are usually even more full of cheats and whatnot than the official ones. If you can even find one that stays online. That's the thing, if you're going to need a server to play, who says your illegal server takes good care of your save games?

Also, as I previous said, this is likely going to delay potential cracks. Simply because they need to somehow acquire parts of the program that are only on the server. As showcased by WoW, this can be done, but I think it's going to take a while. A lot of people are still giddy for D3 and they are probably going to shell out 50-60$ instead of waiting an extra 2-3 weeks.

If you keep thinking along those lines you'll see why I assume that from a buisness point of view, <metaphor> single player in the <metaphor> was a smart thing.


As for the auction house. I don't give two ****s about that, one way or another. I have no idea if blizzard even gains anything from it. As far as I am aware, people have always been buying and selling this stuff for real money so making it legit and safe for the player is not a bad thing in my book. If some kid wants to make a few bucks by pawning off his extra windforces, more power to them. If someone wants to buy some items with real money, again, more power to them. What's the difference between that and items someone got from a giveaway? I know I'd never buy anything from there, but really, why should I care if anyone else does?



 
Re: This just in...

I see your point NF.

It also completely convinced me not to buy D3, even more than I was before. At some point one has to decide if they're writing the game for the people who want to by it, or against the people who want to crack it. Blizzard seems to have decided for the latter.
 
Re: This just in...

Greebo said:
- Piracy and DRM: That issue can be solved just as easily by having to stay online, or be online once an hour, whatever. The content can stay on my HDD.
Click to expand...

I think this is where we disagree. If you only had to be online once an hour, or if the files were left on your computer, you can analyze the communications between the server and client bits of the software. For example, it is trivial to load up a SP character, make some changes to it, and note how the save file changes. Over time, you can map out the geography of the file, and reverse engineer how something works.

With Diablo III, there is much stronger obfuscation, because the logic and primary decision making are done server-side. You won't have the majority of the game data easily extractable from the game MPQ's.

Example, one of the files in d2patch.mpq is CubeMain.txt, trivially accessible after installation. It lists every cube recipe in the game. If you read through that, understand it, and notice a discrepancy, you have super-easy access to potentially game-breaking bugs.



 
Re: This just in...

@NatNit:

I mean, and that's the point that Blizzard is not getting, [highlight]So What?[/highlight]

It's a character on my HDD. I'm not selling it for real money. It's my computer, my bussiness. It has nothing to do with Piracy or DRM. Maybe I want to make all the monsters pink, what's the harm if I write a mod that does that?

I don't think I see your point here. How does anything like that influence b.net in any way?
 
Re: This just in...

Greebo said:
@NatNit:

I mean, and that's the point that Blizzard is not getting, [highlight]So What?[/highlight]

It's a character on my HDD. I'm not selling it for real money. It's my computer, my bussiness. It has nothing to do with Piracy or DRM. Maybe I want to make all the monsters pink, what's the harm if I write a mod that does that?

I don't think I see your point here. How does anything like that influence b.net in any way?
Click to expand...

The part you're not getting (as far as I know) is that the client/server architecture for Single Player and Multiplayer are essentially the same. In single player, your computer is both the client and the server, but the information that is sent between those two processes is the same that is sent between your computer and battle.net for multiplayer.

Crack one, and you've cracked them both. And it's far, far easier to crack single player.



 
Re: This just in...

OK, I see your point. I mean, as I've said from the beginning: I understand what Blizzard is doing, now more than before. I'm just not going to gratify their choices with my money, that's all.
 
Re: This just in...

And yeah, I see your point too. I'm still kind of on the fence about the value of Diablo III after all these reveals. I'm mostly put off by their PR Equivocating BS, but I'll know within a few hours of gameplay whether my purchase was worth it.
 
Re: This just in...

I agree, you pretty much nailed it there natnit.

In a perfect world, Blizz would make a game that could be played on Bnet and one that could be played on SP. They would have to be 2 different games, so that the server code could not just be gotten from the SP version. This is the only way that they could keep SP and maintain there Bnet integrity. And as you can guess...that ain't gonna happen, so one or the other had to go.
 
Re: This just in...

If this were just DRM, connect once every x weeks to get the latest patches and verify your game purchase, I'd be annoyed. However, I'd still be able to play without lag in my own little anti-social singleplayer game. I could spend $5000 USD on a really top-of-the-line computer and enjoy the game I purchased with all the graphics maxed out. Later, when I get bored, I could try out some good-quality mods or make my own mods. The game experience doesn't ever really expire. I've enjoyed Diablo 1 for 15 years, and Diablo 2 for 10 years.

Personally, I'd be willing to purchase D3 if I know I can play it when and where I want. If they make it un-moddable I'd still purchase it. If they make it so it's not a fun game, I'd still purchase it, because I'd want to see for myself how good or bad it is.

Without offline play though, I can't play. I mean, I can, but the 400-1000 ms latency just kills the enjoyment (and my character). Actually, that much lag means Blizzard won't allow me to create or join a game on Battle.net--so in truth, I simply can't play D1 or D2 on their servers. However, I could join WoW without a problem and just get killed all the time during combat--maybe Battle.net 2 will be the same? Oh, how fun.

Think about it--I can purchase a new computer system optimized just for D3...and still suffer lag that makes the game slower than playing D2 offline with a below-minimum-specs computer. And the reason Blizzard tells me it's necessary? Because I'm probably a cheater, and I'm not playing the right way, and I'm missing out on the fun online experience.

In truth, I do sometimes have access to decent Internet connections when I travel, and might be able to play on Battle.net sometimes, maybe. Do I care about the cost of the game? Not really. Am I whining that every game I purchase must be made just for me? Not at all. Do I require that every game I own be updated regularly and playable for free forever? Definitely not.

But without offline singleplayer, I can't play the game when and where I want. Blizzard's decision makes a lot of sense with a massively multiplayer game, but I'm disappointed that they took this route with this game. Will it cut down on cheating? Maybe, but the cheating problem doesn't matter at all to those of us who can't play online (I can honestly say the hacks and dupes of D1 and D2 have not affected me at all, ever).

Blizzard is taking their product in a new direction, and I'm fine with that. But they're leaving me (and a bunch of others) behind...and I'm fine with that too. No reason for me to purchase the product since I can't use it, but I understand this is a push to improve the gaming experience by taking advantage of a worldwide technology infrastructure that continues to grow.

The questions remain--will this truly improve the gaming experience? Will they lose more customers than they gain? Will other game companies follow their lead or take an alternative approach? Will software pirates be daunted by the challenge?

I will say strongly that, despite my decision not to purchase the game, I will not buy a pirated version or play on a pirated server--even if an offline singleplayer option is provided. I don't trust the producers of such garbage, and cleaning my PC of their malware isn't an enjoyable experience.
 
Re: This just in...

The fact we Aussies pay double (or more) for our games (new games are in the $100-$120 range down here, and currently our dollar is worth more than the US dollar), it makes it even easier for me to return Blizzard's middle finger to single players with a middle finger of my own.
 
Re: This just in...

Blizzard is doing this to make more money, no other reason. But putting your fingers in your ears and saying you're not going to play the game because you can't do it exactly the way you want it is silly. Don't make it sound like they've erected this impossibly tall mountain in front of you. Work an extra hour or two a month and get yourself a decent internet connection.

I agree it's a middle finger to offline single players, I just don't think it's a deal breaker and most saying that it is are blowing it out of proportion and will buy the game anyhow. Because let's face it: it's gonna be awesome, and you like you some awesome.
 
Re: This just in...

Bluechip said:
Blizzard is doing this to make more money, no other reason. But putting your fingers in your ears and saying you're not going to play the game because you can't do it exactly the way you want it is silly. Don't make it sound like they've erected this impossibly tall mountain in front of you. Work an extra hour or two a month and get yourself a decent internet connection.

I agree it's a middle finger to offline single players, I just don't think it's a deal breaker and most saying that it is are blowing it out of proportion and will buy the game anyhow. Because let's face it: it's gonna be awesome, and you like you some awesome.
Click to expand...

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Okay, australians, etc. Go put in that extra hour per week and buy yourselves some internets! What's that? There's none to be had? Well strike me blind and call me grandma... o.O And here I thought you guys didn't have decent internet because you were exiled scotsmen who were too cheap to buy some...

Don't you think if there WAS good internet available, people would have it already for the most part? And, as I said, this is the kind of game that lends itself well to single player for WHEN THERE IS NO INTERNET.

Next, who are you to judge whether or not playing offline is a dealbreaker to someone or not? Let's say I go out to buy dinner, but want to take it home for one reason or another. The restaurant guy says "Sorry, we don't do take aways and there's a one hour wait to be seated". (also we need to do a full background check on you to make sure you are actually a legitimate person and not some kind of criminal. Fingerprints here please, DNA sample in that jar, stool sample over here and now we're gonna do a full cavity search as well for good measure) Now if I go and buy dinner at restaurant next door instead, that's silly? Really?

I don't give a **** if you enjoy playing on b.net or not. More power to you. But you can't just go ahead and tell someone who wanted a green car to buy a red one instead because hey, it's not a big deal. Maybe it's not a big deal to you, but perhaps it is to someone else.



 
Re: This just in...

Bluechip said:
Work an extra hour or two a month and get yourself a decent internet connection.
Click to expand...

People on deployment/serving in the military can't necessarily connect to Bnet.
People at University/behind a restricted firewall can't necessarily connect to Bnet.
Australia doesn't have lightning fast/cheap internet to connect to Bnet.

I'd rather that everyone serving in the military didn't resign to play on Bnet.
I'd rather everyone continuing their education didn't quit to play on Bnet.
I doubt most Australians would want to emigrate to play on Bnet.

I posted pretty good reasons why this was a dumb decision in the post I linked to earlier in this thread. It was a dumb decision in 2008 and it is now. For myself ... I don't want to play with Bnet kiddies. I don't want to be forced to connect to Bnet (one of the reasons I pretty much gave up with HG:L).

It's unlikely Blizzard will change their mind, and I bet D3 will be a huge seller. However, it won't be to people who play SP; customers who often buy multiple copies.



 
Re: This just in...

Bluechip said:
I agree it's a middle finger to offline single players, I just don't think it's a deal breaker and most saying that it is are blowing it out of proportion and will buy the game anyhow. Because let's face it: it's gonna be awesome, and you like you some awesome.
Click to expand...

I agree with Nightfish's and Thyiad's responses. Also, I think you were posting in response to me, and I made a point in my post (and prior posts) to say this isn't a money problem for me--it's a location and travel problem. I can usually get an Internet connection, but Battle.net ping rates are horrible in most of the world.

Is Blizzard going to put servers in every country in the world? Maybe they will, but that still doesn't guarantee a good connection. Online gaming speed has more to do with the connection speed between the computers--not the maximum upload/download speeds.

Bluechip, I don't mind that you're ignorant about the availability of the Internet internationally, or that you don't understand how the technology works. I don't even care if you lack empathy for people in different circumstances from you. But we're talking about Blizzard releasing this product (D3) in a way that makes it difficult or impossible for some people (I'd say most people) to play. Why would you assume people will buy it if they can't actually play it, as I and others have explained repeatedly? Pretty shelf decoration?

Blizzard is making a business decision to target people who can, and want to, play online all the time on their servers. They have analyzed the gaming population, and determined that the risk of lost customers due to no offline play is less than the risk of lost customers due to hacks/dupes during online play. One of the points of my post is that I'll be interested to see if Blizzard is correct, and if this starts a trend in the industry...

Consider, however, that those who play offline are untouched by hacks and dupes (unless they choose to do it on offline games), and suffer no lag problems. Those who play online with people they trust in private games also don't suffer from hacks and dupes. So some of the features of Diablo 3 include great new security against hacks/dupes and a great online multiplayer experience with people you don't trust? Okay, that's all fine--I see why people would want that in a game. However, eliminating offline play means I can't play during most of the times I would want to play.

So, yes Bluechip, it is indeed possible for someone to have sufficient money, and want to play Diablo 3, but chooses not to purchase the game for this singular reason of no offline capability. But that's okay--I have other awesome games I can play, and Blizzard's business decisions for Diablo 3 will, I believe, be very attractive to a lot of other people.



 
Re: This just in...

Just my thoughts on the subject:

Blizzard deciding to make it online-only together with the introduction of the real money auction house is just another way of controling the players and get some extra cash from the auction house purchases. Good or bad? First my reaction to online-only was "WTF ?! BULL****" but after thinking for 5 seconds i realized that it wouldn't change how i would play the game at all. Atleast where i live, we have decent internet everywhere, and i don't really care if i can't play when i am travelling. In the end i really don't get how people expect them to make the game PERFECT for EVERYONE.

Sure, some people still don't have access to decent internet yet - but most people do, and lots of people like to play online with their friends. Furthermore online-only doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game alone, and progress the way you like. If you want to play alone, just do it - no one is forcing you to play with anyone. The only thing that is good in parties is that you will get some more items in because of the killing speed. So what? The PVE/PVM part of the game is not competitive anyway.

Conclusion: They can't make everyone happy. If there was a single player, some people would get frustrated because of dupes, cheats, hacks and other stuff. When they make it online-only they make others mad.
 
Re: This just in...

@Krydder:

Your post is exactly what's annoying me in this debate. You mix reasonable arguments, for instance:
Blizzard deciding to make it online-only together with the introduction of the real money auction house is (...) [a] way of (...) get[-ing] some extra cash from the auction house purchases
Click to expand...

Spot on. That's why Blizzard is doing what they're doing.

Now this part:
Conclusion: They can't make everyone happy. If there was a single player, some people would get frustrated because of dupes, cheats, hacks and other stuff. When they make it online-only they make others mad.
Click to expand...

That is pure nonsense. Blizzard doesn't care about making people happy, at all. Nor should they, just in case it seems like I'm criticizing them, I'm not.

The only reason they care, for the first time ever (!), whether there are dupes on b.net, is that they support official system which includes real money for transactions for said items. They've proven consistently for over 10 years, that they don't care about dupes just for the sake of people getting frustrated over dupes existing. We know they don't care about that, b.net had been full of dupes for over a decade.

Now, since items will be officially worth real money, they have to start caring about dupes. So they make D3 online only, fair enough. As I've said again and again, good business decision.

Just don't give me the nonsense that they care about the players who don't want to see dupes on b.net, that's why they do it. No, it's about the money. Nothing wrong with that, it's a company which works for profit. You don't have to make ideology out of it, OK?
 
Last edited:
Re: This just in...

Response to the grammar police:

Greebo said:
That is pure nonsense. Blizzard don't care about making people happy, at all. Nor should they, just in case it seems like I'm criticizing them, I'm not.
Click to expand...

They need to make people happy, to some extend, to make them play the game. But i agree that it was a great decision from blizzard to introduce online-only and real money auction house, with the "we want to have high security etc etc", to make it seem like they only did it because it was good for the players.


 
Log in to Reply / Create Site Account
Remove Ads - Go PurePremium

Latest posts

Back
Top