85 réponses à ce sujet

[aftohsix]

pc.ign.com/articles/118/1185029p1.html.

IMO this is the worst kind of DRM.  Who wants to pay 60 bucks for a game that become a brick whenever your interent is down?

I shared this out of interest with the forums but also to point out that despite all the "EA is teh suck" ranting that goes on around here even some of your "sacred cow" developers such as Blizzard are starting to change with the times.

Ultimately it comes down to them wanting to protect their intellectual property and profit.  Thanks so much hackers / pirates.

[Warheadz]

aftohsix wrote...

pc.ign.com/articles/118/1185029p1.html.

IMO this is the worst kind of DRM.  Who wants to pay 60 bucks for a game that become a brick whenever your interent is down?

I shared this out of interest with the forums but also to point out that despite all the "EA is teh suck" ranting that goes on around here even some of your "sacred cow" developers such as Blizzard are starting to change with the times.

Ultimately it comes down to them wanting to protect their intellectual property and profit.  Thanks so much hackers / pirates.

I agree that it's annoying, but it's still not a gamechanger for me. Starcraft 2 did have the same system, and during the time I played it I had my internet connection cut off twice, and I went to play basketball. It isn't as horrible as some people make it out to be, in my opinion.
However, I still agree that it's silly that you need internet to play SP.

Blizzard is a sacred cow? I didn't know that. I jsut thought that people respected them for turning out quality products, even if the development time is what it is.

Regarding your piracy statement, this kind of DRM is effective but it doesn't remove the problem. People will still find a way around it. It's happened before.
Rather than putting on these restrictions and punishing the paying customers, the gaming companies need to provide more incentives to people so that they will actually buy the product. The fault lies in both the party that pirates software and the game industry itself. Piracy is here to stay, we need to face that. And the industry needs to learn how to live with it.

IMO of course.

[Menycet]

I don't care, as long as I can play it.

[Bapawaka]

Maybe use the cash earn by selling items to upgrade to a better connection / ISP?

[Jonp382]

Bapawaka wrote...

Maybe use the cash earn by selling items to upgrade to a better connection / ISP?

That's not an option for a lot of people.

[aftohsix]

Warheadz wrote...

Blizzard is a sacred cow? I didn't know that. I jsut thought that people respected them for turning out quality products, even if the development time is what it is.

It might not be to you but I've seen MANY posts by other forum members saying things like "Well DA2 is proof Bioware is no longer a quality developer.  Thank god we still have Blizzard!"

Otherwise I agree with everything else you said in your post.  The DRM measures don't stop piracy so they need to find a better way.  

Starcraft 2 did have the same thing with the exception that you had to connect once and then were allowed to play single player offline.  It doesn't look like you'll even have that option with D3 which means no internet = no game.  I know it doesn't happen too often but that's not the point.  It's dumb for them to require something to play which people will not have access to 100% of time.  Especially if you're stuck with Qwest at the moment like I am.

[naughty99]

Warheadz wrote...
gaming companies need to provide more incentives to people so that they will actually buy the product.

Such as?

Isn't being able to play the game incentive enough to buy it?

[KenKenpachi]

aftohsix wrote...

pc.ign.com/articles/118/1185029p1.html.

IMO this is the worst kind of DRM.  Who wants to pay 60 bucks for a game that become a brick whenever your interent is down?

I shared this out of interest with the forums but also to point out that despite all the "EA is teh suck" ranting that goes on around here even some of your "sacred cow" developers such as Blizzard are starting to change with the times.

Ultimately it comes down to them wanting to protect their intellectual property and profit.  Thanks so much hackers / pirates.

Blah Blizzard gets more slack and credit than it deserves imo. Also not surprised, they did the same with Star Craft 2. So your a bit late with this news. Funny enough they can lock you out of Star Craft 2 for modding it at all. I bet they'll do the same with Diablo.  Stoped playing it myself, didn't feel it was that good, and I know in 7years when they finally get the other two made if I'm lucky and its not 30 years, a collectors edition will be out.

As to the DRM it only slows, doesn't stop the hackers.  In fact its been said SC2 is on a number of pirate sites.  As to the EA hate.

For 75% of those on here thats just a case of "sticking it to the man."

[slimgrin]

WTF??

Blizzard you bastards..

[Dandynermite]

aftohsix wrote...

Warheadz wrote...

Blizzard is a sacred cow? I didn't know that. I jsut thought that people respected them for turning out quality products, even if the development time is what it is.

It might not be to you but I've seen MANY posts by other forum members saying things like "Well DA2 is proof Bioware is no longer a quality developer.  Thank god we still have Blizzard!"

Otherwise I agree with everything else you said in your post.  The DRM measures don't stop piracy so they need to find a better way.  

Starcraft 2 did have the same thing with the exception that you had to connect once and then were allowed to play single player offline.  It doesn't look like you'll even have that option with D3 which means no internet = no game.  I know it doesn't happen too often but that's not the point.  It's dumb for them to require something to play which people will not have access to 100% of time.  Especially if you're stuck with Qwest at the moment like I am.

This is the same with every single game on Steam. I connect with steam, if I am, say on holiday, I have no internet connection and cannot play Football Manager 11, Brink, Call of Duty, anything. Does it really matter, the fact you are on Bioware forums shows you have internet connection, and although you may not have internet connection 100% of the time, you don't need to be playing the game 100% of the time. I'd much prefer a system where I can sell in-game items for real money than having an offline mode.

And thank god we do still have Blizzard, they are getting better and better with each game and patch they do. Cataclysm is (unless you are a PuG noob) better than Wotlk, Starcraft 2 is better than Starcraft, Diablo 3 will be better than diable 2, whereas with Bioware Mass Effect is better than Mass Effect 2, and Dragon Age: Origins is a thousand times better than Dragon Age 2.

I still fail to grasp why people feel "needing an internet connection" to be a problem, it isn't. If the game has good graphics, you may need to update your graphics card, you need the internet for that. For patches you are going to need the internet.

The internet is 100% necessary with this game, else you are going to get somebody spawning thousands of "Important object x" and then going online, and selling "Object X" for real money. With this you will get good stuff randomly, or farm, either way you have to work for what you are going to sell.

And furthermore the internet means no mods, so online play will be balanced. If you could mod Diable 3 like you can DA:O then you'd have people like me running around with Frostmournes and Black Templar armour owning everybody.

Having a needed internet connection is the way forward, more and more games will be using, to plant amazing features like real currency Auction houses. It's not a problem to anybody, except those who want to sit in hotels, or when your internet dissconnects because of a fault. Take this as a sign from the maker that its time to go outside...

[Morroian]

Dandynermite wrote...


This is the same with every single game on Steam.
[...]
I still fail to grasp why people feel "needing an internet connection" to be a problem, it isn't.

Uh because internet connections go down. Mine recently went down for almost a week so I shouldn't be able to play single palyer Diablo 3 just because it goes down? Plus always on internet DRM is not always reliable eg. the ubisoft scheme. And Steam isn't the same because it has an offline mode.

Modifié par Morroian, 01 août 2011 - 01:01 .

[aftohsix]

You're completely ignoring the option to have your single player characters stay single player only characters and your multiplayer characters stay multiplayer characters. Diablo 2 did this to an extent but you had the open battle.net option that allowed people to bring their single player characters online. Why not simply remove this option and get rid of the stupid online all the time requirement.

Steam allows you to play games in offline mode. It's not the same as no internet = no play.

[Dandynermite]

So you are saying, you want people who have worked hard in the single-player campaign, not to be able to bring their players online and have to start from scratch, Just incase your own internet goes down and you cannot play it for a while?

[aftohsix]

Dandynermite wrote...

So you are saying, you want people who have worked hard in the single-player campaign, not to be able to bring their players online and have to start from scratch, Just incase your own internet goes down and you cannot play it for a while?

Yep.  I want that totally for selfish reasons.

Call me crazy but wouldn't most people, upon buying the game, choose how they want to play it and stick with that way?  Or if they're really crazy like me enjoy starting a new character from scratch for online play?

[Warheadz]

I actually agree that single- player and multiplayer would maybe be best kept as separate experiences. Even if I see this from the developers standpoint and why it isn't such a big deal, it just goes against my own values that someone HAS to have internet to play a single player game.

[aftohsix]

What Warheadz just said. If I wanted to play an MMORPG. I'd play an MMORPG.

[Dragoonlordz]

Doesn't make much difference to me. Like I said on Kotaku about this subject.

Think of it this way, instead of thinking it's a single player offline game imagine it is an mmo (online multiplayer). An mmo requires you to be online to play its multiplayer much like D3 is for most part while more group or coop than say all out full on everyone hanging around doing nothing in org in wow it's still an online multiplayer game in most regards. The only difference is there is no subscription fee just a one off payment much like buying a box copy of warcraft. If people stop thinking of it as an offline single player game and as a online multiplayer game then it all makes sense.

Now if it butthurts someones principles to play an online game of which D3 is... By simple fact you have to be online to play it therefore is a online game with no 'and, if's or buts' it's an online game not offline one. In the end if don't want to play it or buy it then don't buy it and move on play something else, your life isn't over if you so wish to skip playing a game. You know beforehand it's online only so knowing that you can make informed choice about if want or not, that choice is yours.

Me, personally I still will buy it because since they have said it's online game I will buy it as an online game. I know what it is so I have made an informed choice and one I'm ok with. I'm pretty sure will enjoy the game while others boycott it because isn't what they wanted.

It's not a single player game as such just like an mmo you can solo through the game (mmos) with some exceptions of instances and raids, D3 is the same just because you can solo doesn't make it an offline single player game. It's online multiplayer but you can play solo.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 août 2011 - 01:40 .

[aftohsix]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Doesn't make much difference to me. Like I said on Kotaku about this subject.

Think of it this way, instead of thinking it's a single player offline game imagine it is an mmo (online multiplayer). An mmo requires you to be online to play its multiplayer much like D3 is for most part while more group or coop than say all out full on everyone hanging around doing nothing in org in wow it's still an online multiplayer game in most regards. The only difference is there is no subscription fee just a one off payment much like buying a box copy of warcraft. If people stop thinking of it as an offline single player game and as a online multiplayer game then it all makes sense.

Now if it butthurts someones principles to play an online game of which D3 is... By simple fact you have to be online to play it therefore is a online game with no 'and, if's or buts' it's an online game not offline one. In the end if don't want to play it or buy it then don't buy it and move on play something else, your life isn't over if you so wish to skip playing a game. You know beforehand it's online only so knowing that you can make informed choice about if want or not, that choice is yours.

Me, personally I still will buy it because since they have said it's online game I will buy it as an online game. I know what it is so I have made an informed choice and one I'm ok with. I'm pretty sure will enjoy the game while others boycott it because isn't what they wanted.

When you look at it this way it makes sense.  In a way I suppose I'm guilty of the same kind of whining I saw many people do with DA2.  Which was "Why isn't this more like the last game in the series!  I hate it!".  I suppose part of it is accepting this isn't the third coming of Diablo 2.

[gastovski]

Don't buy, problem solved.

[akselic]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Doesn't make much difference to me. Like I said on Kotaku about this subject.

Think of it this way, instead of thinking it's a single player offline game imagine it is an mmo (online multiplayer). An mmo requires you to be online to play its multiplayer much like D3 is for most part while more group or coop than say all out full on everyone hanging around doing nothing in org in wow it's still an online multiplayer game in most regards. The only difference is there is no subscription fee just a one off payment much like buying a box copy of warcraft. If people stop thinking of it as an offline single player game and as a online multiplayer game then it all makes sense.

Now if it butthurts someones principles to play an online game of which D3 is... By simple fact you have to be online to play it therefore is a online game with no 'and, if's or buts' it's an online game not offline one. In the end if don't want to play it or buy it then don't buy it and move on play something else, your life isn't over if you so wish to skip playing a game. You know beforehand it's online only so knowing that you can make informed choice about if want or not, that choice is yours.

Me, personally I still will buy it because since they have said it's online game I will buy it as an online game. I know what it is so I have made an informed choice and one I'm ok with. I'm pretty sure will enjoy the game while others boycott it because isn't what they wanted.

It's not a single player game as such just like an mmo you can solo through the game (mmos) with some exceptions of instances and raids, D3 is the same just because you can solo doesn't make it an offline single player game. It's online multiplayer but you can play solo.

While I agree with most of your points you are still ignoring the fact that some people have genuine problems with their internet connection. For example some areas in north Finland only have 1 isp that can even provide internet, and when the connection goes down there's nothing they can do about it. The same applies to other countries and other places also. Some others might be stuck to a contract for an year or two and can't swap isp's because of that. Point being, people like these are punished for having bad/no connection.

A second thing you are ignoring is the fact that some people simply prefer single player games. And it isn't unreasonable to expect this because the previous games in the Diablo series had a single player game where you could do your quests and kill your monsters alone in peace without dummies asking for help with this and that knowing your slow fingers won't stop you from getting loot in a group of others.

But like I said, I agree with your view on the matter, and for the same reason I simply won't get it. I don't want another mmo/online game

Modifié par akselic, 01 août 2011 - 01:48 .

[Taldira]

There is a reason WoW, Guild Wars 2 and a whole lot of other MMO's require internet connection, You know, the obvious one. Diablo 3 have no such excuse.

I don't understand why Blizzard advertises this game as a full game with multi-player and single player experience at the same time, when it uses the same model just as any other glorified F2P MMO. Only without the Free part.

[Dragoonlordz]

aftohsix wrote...

When you look at it this way it makes sense.  In a way I suppose I'm guilty of the same kind of whining I saw many people do with DA2.  Which was "Why isn't this more like the last game in the series!  I hate it!".  I suppose part of it is accepting this isn't the third coming of Diablo 2.

I think thats the issue people "assumed" was an offline single player game when in reality they have said now it is an online multiplayer game that you can solo play online much like all mmo's only there is no subscription fees. I have never seen them say it was an offline single player game. People assuming it's something it isn't, most negative reactions will be in that regard.

I was surprised too was online multiplayer game of which can play solo (online) but now I know what they are saying the game is I have decided that I still will get it. It's not out for long time still so people have had enough warning to make a informed choice if want to buy it but they need to get out of this mentality that just because previous titles might have been offline doesn't mean the next title will be the same.

The other thing people moan about are either

1. pay to win of buying high level items and such, well imo this to me is a non-issue as my ego isn't so dependant on competing with others to play a game. I don't care how others play the game as long as they are not stealing my items from my own account I will still feel like accomplished something when get some rare item even if other have it, I know I worked arse off to get it and in that I gain pride in my own accomplishment.

2. online being a requirement to play well this again is a non-issue to me much like how can't play some of latest games on a laptop or old PC this is no different having an online requirement much like having a fast enough CPU or enough RAM or graphics card new enough.

Maybe I'm too easy going but meh in the end I will have fun and my principles are not hurt because I'll be making the choice to play an online game it's not like they advertising it as offline game then after bought decide to switch to online only. That would be justification if happened but it has not.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 août 2011 - 01:58 .

[ErichHartmann]

Diablo III is looking less desirable with every new announcement. There has to be better ways to stop cheaters from ruining the "online experience". Not to mention I lost all interest in multiplayer when they announced PvP would be regulated to arenas.

[Dragoonlordz]

I prefer PvP in areas as it stops the vast amount of griefing. Especially if on killed by higher level better geared or gangs, player drops items and gear. In every online PvP aspect games I have played the ganking and griefing ruins the experience for many for the vicious enjoyment of the few. Prime example BGs in wow were always more fun than open world ganking and griefing.

[AlanC9]

aftohsix wrote...
IMO this is the worst kind of DRM.  Who wants to pay 60 bucks for a game that become a brick whenever your interent is down?

How often does your internet go down? The only time mine goes down is when there's a global power failure,and then I can't game anyway.