Do you like Diablo 3?

[KingIsaacLinksr]

This is truly insane. Seriously, this is.. this is beyond words. There are stupid decisions, there is corporate necessary evil of DRM (EA, Ubisoft) but Blizzard really sets the bar here. That is the lowest of the low. That is putting together all the reasons why I HATE always-on. And NONE of the reasons why would I love it.

The *only* reason they do that is because of the RMT AH. .. Heh i can't even rant. This is the most absurd thing I ever heard.

"Hey, buy our game, its the full version and its fulll price.. it's just the demo for 3 days though." Wow.... I am tempted to give my game back, I am to going to support something like Blizzard ever again.

Your not alone, I just heard that Blizzard was forced to give Koreans Refunds of Diablo 3 (lots of angry gamers over there over the DRM) by the Korean Fair Trade Commission. People are not happy with Blizzard and quite frankly, I hope this black eye tells everyone to back down on this always-on DRM decision.

King

[Mánagarmr]

Yeah, when I read this I thought it was an elaborate troll at first. Christ, are they trying to shoot themselves in the foot with the bazooka?

[zebramatt]

It's probably just a misunderstanding.

 

[Wingflier]

At this point I couldn't care less if Blizzard as a company shut down forever.  I didn't buy the game because I saw this coming from a mile away (starting with the announcement of the RMAH), but I urge anyone who did to get a refund.  This kind of business practice is unacceptable and detrimental to the gaming world.

[keith.lamothe]

It's definitely an argument for avoiding making a game whose business model is susceptible to criminal activity (particularly organized crime).

The game itself being susceptible is fine; our games can be pirated (very easily, if it were any easier you could accidentally pirate it).  But it doesn't interfere with our meeting our goals.

But if the business model itself (i.e. the project's chance of meeting its financial goals) can be threatened by criminal activity, and there's sufficient motivation for that kind of activity (so probably has to be something pretty high-profile), then you're really between a rock and a hard place:
- Either you let the mafia-types run all over the place, because of not wanting to put effective controls in place that compromise the experience for everyone.  And to some extent the criminal activity will probably hurt the experience for a lot of people, depending on the exact mechanics involved.  And you probably don't wind up making the money you were hoping to make.
- Or you try to put effective controls in place (not that this 72-hour rule really strikes me as effective, just somewhat of a pare-down) and risk annoying every customer (every digital customer, in this case).

I mean, short of actually getting law enforcement involved on a pretty large scale, I don't see how Blizzard can win both sides of this.  The way they're going, I don't think they're going to win either side.

[Wingflier]

You can make a pretty good argument that pirates were never a real part of your customer base to begin with.  If you look at these people as freeloaders who, if they had no way to access the game, wouldn't play it, then it doesn't seem like such a big concern does it?

Totalbiscuit makes some good points about it in this video (fast-forwarded to the appropriate time):  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9WbqdYuba4#t=3m50s

I'll be totally honest, when I first started playing AI War several years ago I didn't pay for it at first (I didn't really like it at first anyway, so I never got past the demo).  But as the game was continually updated and improved, I believe I did pirate it and play it quite a bit.  Then I finally bought my copy of all 4 games just to support the company and try the expansions.  But I played quite a few games with my friends where I gave them my keys so we could play past the two hour mark.  I encouraged them to buy the game themselves if they liked it and support an Indie company.  I'm not sure if any of them did, but I ended up buying 3 more copies of all 4 games in the end anyway.

So now I have 4 copies of AI War and all its expansions because Arcen has been so good to me and because I want to support them.

I would have NEVER done this if I even got a hint that you were forcing DRM on me or being greedy about your business practices.  I don't think Arcen would have made a single buck more if they added some intrusive DRM, and would probably have made quite a bit less.  Who knows how many people have pirated your game, and maybe played it for hundreds of hours.  It's better to let them do that, than to ruin it for the people who actually care about your company.

I think Blizzard is getting exactly what they deserve.  I heard in Korea there is basically a mass re-sale of the game because the community there is so unhappy with it.  I hope other gamers follow that example.  http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/korea-vs-blizzard-government-raids-seoul-office-to-determine-is-studio-broke-the-law-with-botched-diablo-iii-release/

When 6 million people buy your game, it is not necessary to have this kind of DRM.  Blizzard has literally become the epitome of a greedy, profit-driven company, and I hope everybody can see it now.

[keith.lamothe]

You can make a pretty good argument that pirates were never a real part of your customer base to begin with.  If you look at these people as freeloaders who, if they had no way to access the game, wouldn't play it, then it doesn't seem like such a big concern does it?

I think that's a bit simplistic but yes, some portion of those who pirate would fall in that category.

Anyway, when I said that our games are susceptible to criminal activity (piracy) but that it doesn't interfere with our goals, what I was implying was that even if piracy were physically impossible we would not make much more money than we do.  I don't think the marginal difference would be zero, and I think it would be positive (more than counterbalancing the "extracurricular advertising" aspect of piracy), but I don't think it would be big.  Certainly not big enough to justify even seriously considering any countermeasure that would inconvenience legitimate customers in any way (note, the serial key does not primarily exist to prevent piracy, it exists so our demo can be the exact same program as the full game and so our expansions don't have to modify the executable or whatever).

I think what Blizzard's concerned about with this 72-hour-rule isn't people getting a copy of Diablo without paying for it, it's what they might do to impact their AH market.  Or something like that.  Far be it from me to insist that there's a coherent reason behind such a decision

[zebramatt]

Also, to clarify: it's not an arbitrary 72 hours; it's however long it takes them to complete their authorisation checks, which will not be longer than 72 hours maximum.

[eRe4s3r]

This would not even be a problem if Diablo 3 wasn't trying to a pseudo MMO.

No other game has this issue, not even Diablo 2

1) They do not EVER touch RMT for a good reason
2) Loot games with random tables with RMT are in some nations considered illegal gambling
3) RMT in games can be used for money laundering (but don't tell Blizzard)
4) no local server management means botters can mask themselves by joining legitimate games then leave, blizzard never knows a thing

Hence, no other game would ever do a AH with RMT. If you do RMT you are part of the farming and laundering economy whether you want it or not. But it is really no surprise Blizzard CEO was braindead enough to ignore the 60k posts against online only gaming in D3, but I guess he figured it's just a minority. Now we can't even play locally without any AH crap in our games, and if you ever open a game to the public you get ghost visits from botters

At this point the Diablo 3 emulator is maybe 40% done, and once it is, Blizzard will never again see me use any of their service. I just wish I could get a refund for the friend who got me this game mainly to make a point.

But really it is amazing what a huge trainwreck diablo 3 is, and let's not even get me started about the patches.. they fix the opposite ends of the problems....

[Wingflier]

Tell me more about this Diablo 3 emulator...

[eRe4s3r]

It's not anywhere near complete or fully working if you meant to ask that.... but at least it's kinda in progress.. just like lacking most quests / events and some skill functions for now. It'll probably take a good year before it becomes a replacement for the original servers ,p

[zespri]

http://www.alexc.me/a-scientific-explanation-why-diablo-3-is-less-addictive-than-diablo-2/417/
And also linked from there:
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/5270834615?page=1

[eRe4s3r]

"Honest" Diablo 3 Trailer
http://www.gamefront.com/our-honest-diablo-3-trailer/

Very well done

[keith.lamothe]

"Honest" Diablo 3 Trailer
http://www.gamefront.com/our-honest-diablo-3-trailer/

Very well done

I think "Bitter Diablo 3 Trailer" would be a more appropriate term, but yes, it does have some valid points

If playing a game in single-player ever involves lag-caused death, something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

[zebramatt]

What is "single player"? Oh! I see. You mean "multiplayer without other people". Why are you looking at me like that?