First UbiSoft, now Blizzard

[Kidan]

Well, it's official now, but Blizzard has nearly managed to make it to my list of all future-titles banned. Of course, they do have a bit of time to rectify their unbridled stupidity, but I'm not holding my breath.

What am I talking about? Why Blizzard's decision to force an always-on internet connection based DRM system into Diablo 3.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/08/01/diablo-3-cannot-be-played-offline/

And sadly, I was actually looking forward to that game...

 

[ewoksrule]

Interesting, personally it does not bother me. I never have my internet off. I mostly play MMOS so I am used to having to be online. I would want all my toons to have access to play with others anyways, so not sure why I would need an offline mode.

 

[Bowser]

Diablo is practically a small scale MMO anyway. I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. They do the same thing with StarCraft, and honestly I think it makes it a better playing experience (albeit, you can still play offline under a separate profile).

 

[Tek7]

/shrug

Wasn't going to get it anyway. Definitely won't be getting it now. Only bought StarCraft II at launch out of company loyalty and I found myself regretting that decision after seeing how Zerg play in SC2.

No worries, Kidan! Torchlight II looks fairly promising...

 

[DannyMeister]

When you have unreliable internet service as I do, this is always bad news.

 

[Odale]

Businesses are entitled to ensure their property is safe, but whenever they do the customers always lose.

I am of the mind that when we buy the game, then everything that comes with it is now ours. When you buy a car, you can turn around and modify it any way you want to - you would think a much simpler item such as software would be the same way.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I am of the mind that when we buy the game, then everything that comes with it is now ours. When you buy a car, you can turn around and modify it any way you want to - you would think a much simpler item such as software would be the same way.

Singleplayer games I completely agree, it gets murky with multiplayer however. To use your car analogy, with a car you can modify it -to a point. And that point is when it becomes a danger to other people, and then you lose the ability to drive it on the road. No biggie if you are into that kind of thing, you just keep it off the road and all is good. Software doesn't work like that. With an always-on DRM scheme, what companies are trying to do is make sure you play nice with everything else or you don't play at all, because there's not really any way for you to play multiplayer on a modded system and still keep it fair for everyone. Not saying I necessarily agree with it, but that's the way it is. For Diablo III seems to be doing some serious blurring of the lines between single and multiplayer, I can understand an always-on connection. Just think of it as an MMO-lite.

 

[Keero]

Mmm, Torchlight 2, where you be?

 

[Icthus]

I am of the mind that when we buy the game, then everything that comes with it is now ours. When you buy a car, you can turn around and modify it any way you want to - you would think a much simpler item such as software would be the same way.

Not totally true.

You still have to be street legal.

And you void your warrantee.

 

[Tek7]

Mmm, Torchlight 2, where you be?

As of June 2011, Runic Games estimates the PC version's release date to be "sometime in 2011."

Source: Wikipedia

If Torchlight II releases before Diablo 3 (and it very likely well), I imagine there will be at least a few people who pick up T2 instead and skip D3 entirely because of the always-on DRM.

 

[Odale]

Not totally true.

You still have to be street legal.

And you void your warrantee.

It's pretty difficult to be so "street illegal" that you're caught and get your car impounded (the same extreme as not being able to play a game you paid for because of no internet). You can put fat tires, lowered suspension and body kits on your car and it still be under warranty, believe it or not.

Even if you do lose your warranty, you still have access to your car.

 

[nattyg]

I am of the mind that when we buy the game, then everything that comes with it is now ours...

You're not buying the game. You're buying media (in some cases) and a license to USE the software - nothing more.

A better analogy would be leasing something, as that's effectively what you're doing - it's just typical a one-time fee for a perpetual license. Even the perpetuity bit differs amongst vendors, at least for software outside of games.

 

[Kendrik]

You're not buying the game. You're buying media (in some cases) and a license to USE the software - nothing more.

This is, sadly, the gist of too many EULAs. I think it's a load of... moosetracks (made that one up)... set in place so that publishers can exercise every possible ounce of control they can and legally get away with it, but such seems to be the legal situation.

Nice of tricky lawyers to seemingly render the first-sale rule meaningless, no?

 

[inkelis]

I'm completely OK with this. It's been obvious to me for quite a while that we are not purchasing the game but rather purchasing a service that could be denied at any time. IE. MMO's that have had their servers shut down.


BTW, i think this actually adds to the Achievement portion of all the new blizzard games.

 

[Kidan]

You're not buying the game. You're buying media (in some cases) and a license to USE the software - nothing more.

A better analogy would be leasing something, as that's effectively what you're doing - it's just typical a one-time fee for a perpetual license. Even the perpetuity bit differs amongst vendors, at least for software outside of games.

Actually, the courts have not finalized the rulings on whether or not if you go to a store and purchase physical media, you are buying a copy of the game or just licensing it. Additionally, the insane restrictions and abuses which are typically called EULAs have not been taken through the ringer of court decisions yet either. *shrugs*

Regardless though, no one goes to wal-mart, picks up a copy of StarCraft II takes it to the register and says, "Hey, I want to license this software."

now, that I think about it, I may just do that this Christmas season

 

[Tek7]

I think everyone who's okay with this has reliable Internet. As a former Mediacom customer, I'm uneasy with any game that requires constant online connectivity to play the single-player campaign. I'm sure DannyMeister, as a Windstream customer, isn't too thrilled with the concept, either.

 

[Durruck]

I can see a list of legit times that you would want to play a game on your laptop but either:

a) no access (or limited access) to the internet (travel, poor service, service outage, satellite users, dial-up users, anyone with a bandwidth restriction)
b) not want to hook to a public internet (ie, airports, coffee shops) and expose your pc to potential attacks.

Have to admit, even though I could care less about D3, it's a crappy mechanism. I understand wanting to protect their property... but at some point, someone is going to find a hack for it... Legit users that don't want to crack their software are the only ones hurt by this.

 

[Tek7]

On the subject of Diablo 3 using always-on DRM, I think this comment from Joystiq posted earlier today sums it up nicely:

I took my laptop on holiday a few weeks ago, staying with family. The room I was in didn't have an Internet connection. I was there for two weeks and I spent a few hours going through Portal 2. This DRM means in that situation I wouldn't be able to play Diablo III at all if I wanted to.

The more developers that see this system as 'working', the more it will happen and soon there won't be any games that don't require a constant connection. So even if some of us don't happen to care about the few games that currently require a needless net connection to play a single player game, it is still in all our interests to oppose this as we are teetering on the edge of a very slippery slope.

I would call to boycott all games that require this DRM, but I know you gamers and I know you don't have any self-control and would buy Diablo III (hell, even the new likely-to-be-mediocre Driver) even if they required you to cut off one of your fingers. In short, this is going to get worse because none of you will oppose it now when there is still a chance to fight back.

Boycott Diablo III until they change this policy. Boycott Driver. It's that simple. But you won't because you're weak, will you?

 

[Uzzo777]

Totally respect the opinions here, but my $.02

1) Always on gaming reduces drastically the number of people playing illegally, which gives more money to the creatives who made the game. I don't go to networking parties where everyone has a CD-Rom with some game, they just buy a cheap game on Steam and we go to town.

2) Always on means constant patching, which means fewer bugs.

3) If there was a market demand for offline games, they would make them. The fact that always on is becoming ubiquitious means that the majority disagrees with you.

4) I play Zerg in SC2 and thing they are by far the most fun.

 

[Tek7]

1) Always on gaming reduces drastically the number of people playing illegally, which gives more money to the creatives who made the game. I don't go to networking parties where everyone has a CD-Rom with some game, they just buy a cheap game on Steam and we go to town.

Eh? Since when does DRM effectively prevent piracy? Even the Assassin's Creed DRM got hacked in short order. The pirates can play offline but legitimate customers can't.

I suppose you could argue that the average citizen doesn't have the technical skill to download a torrent, but it's not that difficult. It's wrong, of course, but not difficult.

2) Always on means constant patching, which means fewer bugs.

Steam allows constant patching and has an offline mode that allows users to play nearly all of their games offline. I've often set Steam to offline before leaving for a destination I know won't have an Internet connection and I'm still able to play my Steam games when I get there.

Steam also has the added bonus of selling games for crazy cheap twice a year (July 4 sale, Christmas/New Year sale).

3) If there was a market demand for offline games, they would make them. The fact that always on is becoming ubiquitious means that the majority disagrees with you.

Well, I could say a few things about majority opinion, but none of them would be polite and some of which would likely derail the thread into a discussion on politics, so I'll refrain.

As for a market for offline games: I'm guessing Portal 2 sold plenty of copies and doesn't require a constant Internet connection to play the single-player campaign.

4) I play Zerg in SC2 and thing they are by far the most fun.

Then you're either far more skilled than me or a masochist. (It is entirely possible that it's the former rather than the latter; I'm pretty terrible at SC2.) In my experience, Zerg is, by far, the least forgiving of any race to play in SC2. Protoss are called easy mode for a reason.

Just for the record: I don't expect to change anyone's mind concerning DRM. People are free to spend their money however they wish (as long as they don't break the law, of course). I don't expect always-on DRM to go anywhere because gamers, as a general rule, have no self-control and will tolerate whatever abuse major publishers dish out. I sincerely doubt that will change any time soon.