Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

"Always Online DRM Won't Affect Anyone!"

ArEfArEf LiverpoolPosts: 233Member

Hahahahahahahahah...

Hahahahahahahahahahahah....

Hahahahah...

Hah...

Hah...

Hah.

Too fucking funny.

Add me on Steam!

RawrfulCast - My YouTube Channel
Me and a Friend are Bad At Games :(

Comments

  • MikkelBMikkelB SteenwijkPosts: 240Member

    It's not that it won't affect anyone, some people are just not bothered with it. That the difference.

    What I find pretty hilarious, judging from people posting here, is that everyone and his dog is whining that they couldn't login to play the "singleplayer". All posters here, on the MMORPG forum, worrying about the RMAH, worrying about not having PvP at launch, bitching how people have their own personal loot, etc. All online functions, but suddenly, they want to play the "singleplayer" portion. This irony is delicious in my opinion.

    Like I said in other threads, I could play for a solid few hours this morning. No lag, no login problems, no worries. The "Always Online"-bit hasn't affected me in the slighest yet. Neither can I be bothered when it happens.

  • RavenRaven LondonPosts: 1,974Member Common

    To be fair I play MMOs everyday pretty much, I need to be connected all the time, if my connnection fails I drop out, this is no different.

    Every game nowadays has an always on component, including all first person shooters, so people should be used to being online constantly, having a login and having to connect to a server is perhaps the most efficient way of going against piracy without the old bullshit of "Insert the original disc onto your drive", it also allows you to have your account and be able to access "your game" from anywhere, with things like the cloud, all progress saved etc...

    Good enough for me.

    image

  • MikkelBMikkelB SteenwijkPosts: 240Member

    Originally posted by rav3n2

    To be fair I play MMOs everyday pretty much, I need to be connected all the time, if my connnection fails I drop out, this is no different.

    Every game nowadays has an always on component, including all first person shooters, so people should be used to being online constantly, having a login and having to connect to a server is perhaps the most efficient way of going against piracy without the old bullshit of "Insert the original disc onto your drive", it also allows you to have your account and be able to access "your game" from anywhere, with things like the cloud, all progress saved etc...

    Good enough for me.

    The "disc in drive"-solution was a pain. The real pain was the shit Monkey Island pulled. "Page 39, second word on the third sentence".

  • GrinnzGrinnz Utica, NYPosts: 310Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by MikkelB

    Originally posted by rav3n2

    To be fair I play MMOs everyday pretty much, I need to be connected all the time, if my connnection fails I drop out, this is no different.

    Every game nowadays has an always on component, including all first person shooters, so people should be used to being online constantly, having a login and having to connect to a server is perhaps the most efficient way of going against piracy without the old bullshit of "Insert the original disc onto your drive", it also allows you to have your account and be able to access "your game" from anywhere, with things like the cloud, all progress saved etc...

    Good enough for me.

    The "disc in drive"-solution was a pain. The real pain was the shit Monkey Island pulled. "Page 39, second word on the third sentence".

    Or Bard's Tale III with the code wheel lol....man I miss old school games!

    image

  • MikkelBMikkelB SteenwijkPosts: 240Member

    Originally posted by Alphamojo

    Originally posted by MikkelB


    Originally posted by rav3n2

    To be fair I play MMOs everyday pretty much, I need to be connected all the time, if my connnection fails I drop out, this is no different.

    Every game nowadays has an always on component, including all first person shooters, so people should be used to being online constantly, having a login and having to connect to a server is perhaps the most efficient way of going against piracy without the old bullshit of "Insert the original disc onto your drive", it also allows you to have your account and be able to access "your game" from anywhere, with things like the cloud, all progress saved etc...

    Good enough for me.

    The "disc in drive"-solution was a pain. The real pain was the shit Monkey Island pulled. "Page 39, second word on the third sentence".

    Or Bard's Tale III with the code wheel lol....man I miss old school games!

    Haha, the code wheel, also a classic one. I got DJ Max Trilogy and that came with an obnoxious USB stick. It only runs with that thing in my PC and it uses it as a memorycard. I dread the day I lose that thing image

    I wonder if we will think back, in about 10 years, with nostalgia eyes, to those "good" days with the Assassin's Creed 2 DRM. Ah, lost the connection, back to the menu! Wheeeee.

  • LobotomistLobotomist ZagrebPosts: 5,050Member Uncommon

    Its bummer. But look at it from positive side :

    Without it you would not be able to play online with any character without being plagued by cheaters.

    image

  • jonchicoinejonchicoine orlando, FLPosts: 77Member

    But for sure... they could of made it so you could still play in single player without logging in, and still get the benifits of online play (someone mentioned, less cheaters...) ...

     

    this sets such a bad precidient :(

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member

    Originally posted by jonchicoine

    But for sure... they could of made it so you could still play in single player without logging in, and still get the benifits of online play (someone mentioned, less cheaters...) ...

     

    this sets such a bad precidient :(

    To be fair, this isn't really a precident.  It started a couple of years ago with, I think, one of the Assassin's Creed games.

  • WhiteLanternWhiteLantern Nevada, MOPosts: 2,732Member

    Originally posted by niceguy3978

    Originally posted by jonchicoine

    But for sure... they could of made it so you could still play in single player without logging in, and still get the benifits of online play (someone mentioned, less cheaters...) ...

     

    this sets such a bad precidient :(

    To be fair, this isn't really a precident.  It started a couple of years ago with, I think, one of the Assassin's Creed games.

    AC2, as I recall. And Ubisoft received so much backlash over it, they eventually removed the "feature".

    I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil

  • MikkelBMikkelB SteenwijkPosts: 240Member

    Originally posted by jonchicoine

    But for sure... they could of made it so you could still play in single player without logging in, and still get the benifits of online play (someone mentioned, less cheaters...) ...

     

    this sets such a bad precidient :(

    It's not possible with the way the data gets distributed. The installation on your harddrive is pretty much only textures, movies and music. The droprates, spawnrates, randomizing values, etc. all come from the servers. With for example Diablo 2, this was also installed and hence making offline play possible.

    Because of their decision to put that data on their servers, they can (in theory) combat exploiters easier, but it forces us to be online. That and the RMAH of course XD

  • AnirethAnireth Posts: 599Member Uncommon

    It is not impossible because we only have textures and stuff, and not the logic, it's impossible because of their decision to seperate that. It's not like it would have been hard for them to offer singleplayer, they had to go out of their way to disable it (and i'm quite certain we will see singleplayer, done by modders).

    I don't care whether it's feasible with the way the game works, they build it from ground up, took more then 10 years (with breaks), several hundred people and millions of dollars. If they wanted, they could have given us a true sandbox mmo where you can make your own dungeon (like, in Dungeon Keeper) when playing as Diablo.

    But they decided not to do it. It's understandable, but stuff like "it's not possible the way the game works" is no excuse.

    That's like if it would be okay for a car to only have a range of 1 km because some genius manager decided to weld the tank lid, or in extreme cases like her, removed the tank itself. Of course it's impossible to increase the range without integrating a tank again, but they are the ones who decided to take it out. Reason: Without tanks and the new special fuel only available at exclusive car dealers, you can't steal the car.

    Unless you cut it open again or built in a new tank. Seeing what people do to cars as a hobby, it's not like it would really prevent stealing if you want to.

    Games work similar. They remove features and add stuff like DRM, whether it's CD checks, always on etc, that won't really prevent what they are trying to. I played the beta, and if it would have convinced it i would have bought it, as it didn't, i'm gonna skip it, at least for the time being. But after a quick search it at least appears that the beta was already cracked, and now the full release is, too.

    So, as cheaters aren't a problem in singleplayer or in private games, how exactly did always on DRM help? Multiplayer via battle.net is always on anyways, so where exactly is the difference, except that i can't play at all when either my connection or their servers aren't working?

    They could have seperated singleplayer and multiplayer in a different way. Similar to Valves VAC. Protected servers and unprotected. Or leave that out if you have to, just leave singleplayer, though there would be no reason to not support everything with this.

    They could have hosted a bunch of servers, severly less then they have to use now, these would be the ofificlal ones. On protected servers, you have to create a new character if you do not have one, and the character gets stored there. The character would be "always on" so to say.

    With unprotected, you could switch between singleplayer and multiplayer, but you would have the "risk" of running into cheaters. Private games would still have prevented that.

    And of course, singleplayer would be totally fine. If you want to cheat there, it's your problem.

    This would be a really elegant solution, would probably have been less work and certainly not hurt their reputation or sales, seeing that the current model didn't work, either, and it will be a record selling game anyways. Most people do not even care if it's any good, it's f***ing Diablo III after all.

    I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
    And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
    Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
    And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore

  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNPosts: 2,150Member Uncommon

    I for one am glad they did it.

    Always online does not bother me in the least. If it helps cut out the hackers, scammers, cheats, ect that literally ruined D2 then props to them.

    TL2 wont have any sort of protection. While it will be a good game I am sure, the hackers will eventually make it unplayable.

  • LawlmonsterLawlmonster Dallas, TXPosts: 953Member Uncommon

    The best form of DRM is a product of such quality that it beleaguers pirates to purchasing. This notion that reducing feature sets to provide better cost to value protection is in direct harm of the customers, and where we used to have the choice to play these games by ourselves or with others, either offline or on, we're now forced to reconcile with an exponentially growing variable of efficiency; that is to say, "streamlining".

    "This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)

  • ArEfArEf LiverpoolPosts: 233Member

    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    Its bummer. But look at it from positive side :

    Without it you would not be able to play online with any character without being plagued by cheaters.

    What is this retardation? Did you PLAY Diablo 2 Battle.net? Battle.net was it's closed instance. You could play on Open Battle.net, which was basically open hacking central, but Battle.net only had cheats that were already in the game and got patched out (duping bugs etc).

    THAT was acceptable.


    Originally posted by jdnewell

    I for one am glad they did it.

    Always online does not bother me in the least. If it helps cut out the hackers, scammers, cheats, ect that literally ruined D2 then props to them.

    TL2 wont have any sort of protection. While it will be a good game I am sure, the hackers will eventually make it unplayable.

    Wow.

    Just.

    Wow.

    ITT: People who've never played Diablo 2.

    Add me on Steam!

    RawrfulCast - My YouTube Channel
    Me and a Friend are Bad At Games :(
  • UngoHumungoUngoHumungo Middletown, OHPosts: 518Member

    Bring on the rust storm

    There are times when one must ask themselves is it my passion that truly frightens you? Or your own?

  • atticusbcatticusbc Burlington, VTPosts: 1,069Member

    i always feel bad for legitimate users when stuff like this comes along. pirates are going to crack it in a week, and they'll be playing it when and how they want (say with darkd3 without worrying about bans) whereas the people who actually bought the game are the ones who suffer. lunacy. devs and publishers keep going to extremes to stop pirates, when all they're doing is making more of them and supporting their arguments for piracy.

    EDIT: to the people complaining about hackers ruining their game: single player, anyone?

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by jonchicoine
    But for sure... they could of made it so you could still play in single player without logging in, and still get the benifits of online play (someone mentioned, less cheaters...) ...
     
    this sets such a bad precidient :(


    No they couldn't, not really. The entire design of the game is built around the server controlling things that make it less than trivial for people to cheat. Mob drops, monster behavior, etc. To give the game an offline option, players would have to run a server on their machine with the client. Which I'm sure many people would be happy with, especially the people who want to figure out how to cheat.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • ArEfArEf LiverpoolPosts: 233Member

    Originally posted by atticusbc

    i always feel bad for legitimate users when stuff like this comes along. pirates are going to crack it in a week, and they'll be playing it when and how they want (say with darkd3 without worrying about bans) whereas the people who actually bought the game are the ones who suffer. lunacy. devs and publishers keep going to extremes to stop pirates, when all they're doing is making more of them and supporting their arguments for piracy.

    EDIT: to the people complaining about hackers ruining their game: single player, anyone?

    The only hackers in D2's Battle.net were those that abused bugs that Blizz had managed to leave in the game. There were no hackers of any other sort and, if there were, they'll be in D3 too because THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

    Add me on Steam!

    RawrfulCast - My YouTube Channel
    Me and a Friend are Bad At Games :(
  • expressoexpresso mePosts: 2,183Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ArEf

    Originally posted by atticusbc

    i always feel bad for legitimate users when stuff like this comes along. pirates are going to crack it in a week, and they'll be playing it when and how they want (say with darkd3 without worrying about bans) whereas the people who actually bought the game are the ones who suffer. lunacy. devs and publishers keep going to extremes to stop pirates, when all they're doing is making more of them and supporting their arguments for piracy.

    EDIT: to the people complaining about hackers ruining their game: single player, anyone?

    The only hackers in D2's Battle.net were those that abused bugs that Blizz had managed to leave in the game. There were no hackers of any other sort and, if there were, they'll be in D3 too because THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

    You back? did you get a temp ban? cus you went silent for a day or two.. we were worried about you.

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member

    Originally posted by MikkelB

    The "disc in drive"-solution was a pain. The real pain was the shit Monkey Island pulled. "Page 39, second word on the third sentence".

    Hahaha, I remember that...a lot of games during that time period made you do that.

    With the DRM...I just dont buy the games. I look at it like someone telling me that I would have to call someone and stay on the line with them to drive me car...get lost, not going to happen. I dont care what the game is, I dont like the idea so ill protest by not buying it.

    It doesnt do anything to stop piracy, they cracked the DRM file with the first game that used it...its just a matter of masking the connection process and sending the information back to the file monitoring a connection. Not one game that uses this escaped being cracked so they are only punishing the rest of us.

    BTW, yes I am always online...when im online. I have only been without internet connectivity maybe 3 days total in 4 years but guess what? When I was without because of an accident that knocked my entire block out is when I REALLY REALLY wanted to be able to play something.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • jdnewelljdnewell Spring Hill, TNPosts: 2,150Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ArEf

    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    Its bummer. But look at it from positive side :

    Without it you would not be able to play online with any character without being plagued by cheaters.

    What is this retardation? Did you PLAY Diablo 2 Battle.net? Battle.net was it's closed instance. You could play on Open Battle.net, which was basically open hacking central, but Battle.net only had cheats that were already in the game and got patched out (duping bugs etc).

    THAT was acceptable.


    Originally posted by jdnewell

    I for one am glad they did it.

    Always online does not bother me in the least. If it helps cut out the hackers, scammers, cheats, ect that literally ruined D2 then props to them.

    TL2 wont have any sort of protection. While it will be a good game I am sure, the hackers will eventually make it unplayable.

    Wow.

    Just.

    Wow.

    ITT: People who've never played Diablo 2.



    No offense but try not to be such a dumb @#*$

    Me and many many of my friends played D1 and D2 for years. D2 was hack fest central on blizzards Battle.net.

    I friend of mine had something stolen off his character in game one night by a hacker, just looted his inventory. Sounds like you never played D2.

  • teddy_bareteddy_bare Washington, NJPosts: 398Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by ArEf

    Originally posted by Lobotomist

    Its bummer. But look at it from positive side :

    Without it you would not be able to play online with any character without being plagued by cheaters.

    What is this retardation? Did you PLAY Diablo 2 Battle.net? Battle.net was it's closed instance. You could play on Open Battle.net, which was basically open hacking central, but Battle.net only had cheats that were already in the game and got patched out (duping bugs etc).

    THAT was acceptable.


    Originally posted by jdnewell

    I for one am glad they did it.

    Always online does not bother me in the least. If it helps cut out the hackers, scammers, cheats, ect that literally ruined D2 then props to them.

    TL2 wont have any sort of protection. While it will be a good game I am sure, the hackers will eventually make it unplayable.

    Wow.

    Just.

    Wow.

    ITT: People who've never played Diablo 2.

    I'm sorry man but you're just plain full of it

    Diablo 2 was so full of hackers and cheaters for the first 5 freaking years that it wasn't even fun to play anymore. It wasn't until Blizz came out w/ 2.0 and Warden that they really were able to do anything about it. But by then it was pretty much too late.

    I would rather have this "always-on" system then be plauged by the jerk-off cheaters, dupers, haxors, and the like. Granted, I am really not very happy about how easy Blizz made it to pay-2-win, but it seems that is what a large portion of people wanted, so they gave it to them. I just wish that they had devised a better way to keep the p2w seperate from those of us that actually want to play-2-win, but maybe that will come down the road.

    I haven't picked up my copy of D3 yet, and I won't be able to until tomorrow :*-( So I can't really comment on how good the game actually is. From what I do know in the limited amount of time I played it in OB though, I think I will really enjoy it. I don't think it's as dumbed down as everyone thinks. They really didn't REMOVE the customization, they just CHANGED it, and they're reasoning for doing so is sound IMHO. I mean let's face it, every class did have a couple cookie-cutter builds that were pretty much requiered to succeed. This new system looks like it may actually change that a bit, I mean, I'm sure there will still be some cookie-cutting going on, but I hope this will lead to more variety and freedom.

    As for Blizzard, I HAVE to give them the benefit of the doubt. They have been THE premier PC developer for a long time, and have never let me down with their products. Not only have they always made some of, if not THE best PC games, but they have always supported the hell out of them as well, for free to boot, outside of the obligatory expansion pack here or there... It will be my, and I'm sure many others, worst fears come to pass if Activision truly has corrupted Blizzard. I don't know, Mike Morhaime is still the head of Blizzard, and as long as he's there and in-charge I find it hard to believe he'd allow his company to change for the worse so much. Of course, Blizz is now part of a publicly-traded company, one headed by a scum-bag to boot, so it's not like it's outside the realm of possibility, but it would be hugely disapointing if Blizzard is losing it's way. Especially before they make Warcraft 4...

    image
This discussion has been closed.