First UbiSoft, now Blizzard

[Elader Arkon]

From MTV Multiplayer blog

One of the reasons the online-only decision upset fans was because it was believed limiting piracy was the rationale. Other companies, like Ubisoft and Capcom, have implemented strict digital rights management (DRM) rules about keeping even single-player games connected online. Was this the case for Blizzard? Bridenbecker says not at all.

"Internally I don't think [DRM] ever actually came up when we talked about how we want connections to operate. Things that came up were always around the feature-set, the sanctity of the actual game systems like your characters. You're guaranteeing that there are no hacks, no dupes. All of these things were points of discussion, but the whole copy protection, piracy thing, that's not really entering into why we want to do it. I'm a huge purveyor of online sites and from my standpoint, I don't look at DRM solutions and go, 'Wow, those are awesome.' I look at those and say, 'Wow, those kind of suck.' But if there's a compelling reason for you to have that online connectivity that enhances the gameplay, that doesn't suck. That's awesome."

So if piracy and DRM never came into the decision, why not just offer an offline mode for those that want to use it? "Let's say we want to create an offline capacity," he explained. "You're introducing a separate user flow, a separate path that players are going to go down. And, at the end of the day, how many people are going to want to do that?"

And you know what, I think he's dead on.
If you design a system with the idea that you are always going to be connected in a similar vein to an MMO, you can do things drastically different, and have more leverage with that you do and allow for in a multiplayer experience. People don't demand an offline mode for an MMO, even though (at least in my experience) you spend the majority of the time going it solo or with just a couple friends. It simply doesn't make sense for that kind of thing, because they weren't designed to be played offline. Blizzard, being a multiplayer oriented company (I defy anyone to prove me otherwise), is simply taking the advantages allowed with an always-on connection to the next logical step outside of an MMO.

 

[Caleb]

Titan quest and titan quest immortal throne is a good alternative
to Diablo 3 if Diablo 3's gonna have always online DRM.

 

[Odale]

...If you design a system with the idea that you are always going to be connected in a similar vein to an MMO, you can do things drastically different, and have more leverage with that you do and allow for in a multiplayer experience. People don't demand an offline mode for an MMO, even though (at least in my experience) you spend the majority of the time going it solo or with just a couple friends. It simply doesn't make sense for that kind of thing, because they weren't designed to be played offline. Blizzard, being a multiplayer oriented company (I defy anyone to prove me otherwise), is simply taking the advantages allowed with an always-on connection to the next logical step outside of an MMO.

Game design is fine and dandy, but why do they have to design a game where you must constantly be connected to the internet?

Of course he doesn't see them using DRM - they don't have to use traditional DRM because their consumers must be tethered to the internet to play the game they bought.

This Bridenbecker person may not see two forms of DRM, but I do - only one has a leash in its hand.

 

[Elader Arkon]

Game design is fine and dandy, but why do they have to design a game where you must constantly be connected to the internet?

Because like it or not, games are becoming a social thing. It simply doesn't make sense that a game that might as well be called a pseudo-mmo would not be something where people wouldn't want to be connected.

 

[ewoksrule]

Because like it or not, games are becoming a social thing. It simply doesn't make sense that a game that might as well be called a pseudo-mmo would not be something where people wouldn't want to be connected.

this

 

[Odale]

That still doesn't excuse the absence of offline play.

I don't see why the game can't have both.

 

[ewoksrule]

I don't see why you can't accept they made it an online game and play it or not accordingly. They want to keep it hack and cheat free, they want everything to be focused around the multiplayer and they don't want to see people playing a toon to 40 and having to start over when they want to check out coop. Just like any mmoish game out there, its meant to be played online only.

A big part of this game is the real money auction house, that kinda doesn't work in an offline-single player only mode.

 

[silverleaf]

Personally, I actually love it. Don't like the RMT market though, but love how they killed singleplayer so people will stop whining and asking for sacrifices on multiplayer so people can play singleplayer. But that's just from someone who believes all games should be multiplayer and unless it is multiplayer it ain't worth playing. There are exceptions of course, such as a nice story and campaign, but an RPG that's SP isn't worth playing to me. So I was horrified when I learnt they cut it to 5 players max, hoping they increase to 8 if not 16 soon.

 

[Odale]

Admittedly, I've been looking forward to D3 for a while now because it looks so amazing. The classes sound really really interesting, fun, and diverse.

Despite the RMAH and the need to be connected constantly (I really don't see the harm in telling people they'd have to make a separate character to play online) I'll probably buy it eventually. However, the new Neverwinter game might steal me away.

 

[Sarugon]

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.

Lolwut? I think most people when given a choice between being able to play both online and offline would choose that over needing a constant connection.

And sense when has the majority opinion influenced anything that activision has done? Do the majority of people want games to buy games at $60 instead of $50? Or charge ludicrous prices for small DLCs? No, but I guess people are just lemmings that don't have the spine to actually boycott anything.

 

[Kendrik]

However, the new Neverwinter game might steal me away.

Dat Neverwinter! :O

 

[ewoksrule]

I SO want Neverwinter to be awesome....but I don't trust Cryptic at all. Anyone but them really...no I take that back, def NOT Squeenix.

 

[Avesther]

Is GW2 going to be any good?

 

[ursen]

Is the Pope Catholic? If GW2 lives up to half of what has been released so far it will change the way people look at MMORPGs.

 

[ewoksrule]

GW2 is a genre changer for sure. Nothing on the near or distant horizon can touch what GW2 is serving up.

 

[Bowser]

http://www.youtube.com/user/ForceSC2strategy#p/c/5C2F514ECED855CA/1/3QpSkhvPVQI

a great and intelligent discussion on Diablo's market, DRM, and other things. It's a little long, and I'm still listening to it, but so far I've liked it.

I'd like to make a quick point though. Why would you not purchase a game because of an always-online DRM, when you would only play the game offline maybe 5% of the time? I sort of understand it's because of principle, but still, it's a little beyond me that rarely would we be in a situation where we couldn't play online, and yet we'd still choose to not get the game based solely on that. In my opinion it's not a bad system, and it's definitely better than the junk DRM that gets installed on the computer.

I'm going to boycott the internet, because I don't like that it requires me to always be connected. Why can't I just download it and use it w/o the nuisance of being online?

I'm also going to boycott the Strongs concordance, because I can't fit it in my back pocket. If I can't read it while I'm waiting in line to get coffee at Starbucks, then forget it.

 

[Keero]

I'm going to boycott the internet, because I don't like that it requires me to always be connected. Why can't I just download it and use it w/o the nuisance of being online?

I'm also going to boycott the Strongs concordance, because I can't fit it in my back pocket. If I can't read it while I'm waiting in line to get coffee at Starbucks, then forget it.

I lol'd.

 

[ewoksrule]

I said TL: DR but now that you singled out those lines i lol'd

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

I'd like to make a quick point though. Why would you not purchase a game because of an always-online DRM, when you would only play the game offline maybe 5% of the time? I sort of understand it's because of principle, but still, it's a little beyond me that rarely would we be in a situation where we couldn't play online, and yet we'd still choose to not get the game based solely on that. In my opinion it's not a bad system, and it's definitely better than the junk DRM that gets installed on the computer.

I tolerate the online DRM of Steam because I know it's necessary but for years I had no internet connection and part of me would still prefer it that way. Without an internet connection I wasted less time surfing the net and got more done. No connection = no always on temptation to slack off (and I don't find an always on internet that useful). Back then I would still buy and play the occasional game (and even a primarily online game, Unreal 2004, for modding) but not having the internet made me waste less time. With always on DRM I have to have an internet connection for a game whether I want it or not.

Also if you are required to connect to play a game you would always be at the mercy of the developer. If Steam goes belly up they have been quoted as saying they would flip a switch and make all their games playable offline. However that's only them saying it there is no guarantee they or other online DRM users actually would. Then there is the disclaimer I've read in some games about developers having the right to alter online experiences after the fact. What if I don't want it altered? Yes always on DRM may just do a check and not change/update the game but how do I know that? The only certain way us non-technical types can be sure our game cannot be altered or taken away by an online tether is for it not to have one.

You just asked for a couple valid reasons I'm not actually against, say Steam's DRM, because I know something is needed for piracy protection (I know we aren't taking about Steam I just used it as an example).

 

[Kidan]

I'd like to make a quick point though. Why would you not purchase a game because of an always-online DRM, when you would only play the game offline maybe 5% of the time? I sort of understand it's because of principle, but still, it's a little beyond me that rarely would we be in a situation where we couldn't play online, and yet we'd still choose to not get the game based solely on that. In my opinion it's not a bad system, and it's definitely better than the junk DRM that gets installed on the computer.

Taking you last point, first, any system that starts from the point of accusing me that I'm a thief is automatically a BAD SYSTEM from my point of view. I do not appreciate the stance that these companies are taking in that they are actively hostile towards me as a gamer, customer and consumer of their product. As for "rarely in a situation where we couldn't play online" you can't really say that. You don't know the situation for everyone. I know a number of people that don't have dedicated internet at their homes for various reasons (monetary, religious, etc). For example, my parents still use dial-up--as such, I would not be able to play D3 at my parent's house on a laptop. I know a number of people that fly frequently for their job--as such, they can't play while on planes. I know a number of people that live out in those rural areas where high-speed internet still does not exist yet. And even better yet, I know a number of people who have the misfortune to live in those areas where the big ISPs are test-bedding the limited data plans for high-speed internet, thus they turn it off when it's not needed. So, even above and beyond the whole, calling paying users thieves (and remember, ONLY paying users will be afflicted with this horrible system--the pirates actually get to play offline) thing, there's still a large number of folks that don't have the dedicated internet that this system requires. And that's not even touching issues that can crop up on those authentication servers from sheer overload to actual DDOS attacks.

I'm going to boycott the internet, because I don't like that it requires me to always be connected. Why can't I just download it and use it w/o the nuisance of being online?

Actually, you don't have to be always connected to use the internet. The system was designed for partial connectivity, and as such, you only need to be online while performing actual activities/communications. And even that is starting to lessen--case in point, look at Amazon's new Kindle web-based reader's offline mode.

I'm also going to boycott the Strongs concordance, because I can't fit it in my back pocket. If I can't read it while I'm waiting in line to get coffee at Starbucks, then forget it.

Amusingly enough, I carry Strongs, three versions of the Bible as well as Christian Theology vols 1-3 plus a handful of other theological-based study guides/devotionals with me everywhere. That's not counting the three or four dozen novels that I have on my person at all times. I can read them at will--either online or off, and I can even connect to a server and switch that selection of books out for an entirely different set of books (using either kindle sync service OR the library I carry on my thumb drive).