FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
Blizzard's new policy: Diablo 3 will suck
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Game Talk View previous topic :: View next topic  

Poll Result
  Is always-on internet authentication:  
 
A stupid idea that won't stop me buying things
28%
 28%  [ 2 ]
An effective anti-copying measure (snigger)
28%
 28%  [ 2 ]
A good way to stop people cheating (snigger)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
The best thing since sliced bread
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
A complete deal-breaker
42%
 42%  [ 3 ]
 
  Total Votes : 7  

 Author
Message
Chrisj



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Oxford, UK



PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:11 pm    Post subject: Blizzard's new policy: Diablo 3 will suck Reply with quote

Blizzard have announced that they're planning to have D3 require "always on" internet authentication for single player (1up,Wired,RPS, What Games Are). Because obviously, the way to enhance the single-player experience is to make it not work if the player loses their internet connection, or the server crashes. I don't mind authentication on installation, but this is stupid.

I thought the hammering UBIsoft had taken after introducing this kind of nonsense (a 36% drop in sales is hardly trivial) might have caused the industry to give some thought to the matter, but apparently not. (Relatedly, UBIsoft has apparently announced that said sales drop indicates the success of the system.)

But for me this changes Diablo 3 from the first major studio title in years I've given serious thought to buying on pre-order to something I'm not planning to buy at all, unless they reverse this decision. (And comment threads across the internet suggest I'm not the only one.)

Update: Apparently, the official Blizzard reply to people asking "what if I want to play offline?" is "there are other games to play for times like that". Shorter version: "go away, peons". There are other games, and they might just find that people like me buy those games instead of Blizzard's.
Back to top
View user's profile
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh dear. I suspect they'll release a patch to make offline play possible after ~6weeks, most publishers are concerned with protecting the launch (as they spent ~XXX million on marketing for it). Still, it's not good.

It seems like everyone has come to the conclusion that the only reliable way to prevent piracy is to move online. There are two ways of doing it. 1 - make a fully online MMO style game where nearly everything important is done on the server. 2 - make a single player game access data and/or some important calculations from a server. Some previous attempts at (2) didn't work because they were just doing some easily hacked online checks, which is pointless, but if bits of the next level and critical calculations are handled by server and never locally then it can be very secure. So it can certainly work, even for single player.

The problem is selling it to people. You have to convince people there is real benefit to it. Obviously in this case it doesn't really sound convincing. If the world was updating somehow based on the actions of other players. If your own actions had an affect on the wider world. If people could anonymously help each other. Kind of an offline/online asynchronous MMO, that feels really different because you can play it in a more relaxed single player style. That would be cool. It would then have to be mostly online, and I wouldn't mind. It wouldn't feel like DRM.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Konedima
Grammar Police
Grammar Police


Joined: 25 Oct 2003
Posts: 1068
Location: Sydney, Land of Censorship



PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poo Bear - have you played Demon's Souls?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, but I've read all about it, afaik it's a PS3 exclusive - curses! That game does sound a lot like what I was thinking of i.e. it's not as time destroying as a full on MMO, but it has a lot of online integration that makes it feel like your part of something bigger.

'When connected to the PlayStation Network, online play is integrated into the single-player experience. Throughout levels, players can briefly see the actions of other players as ghosts in the same area that may show hidden passages or switches. When a player dies, a bloodstain can be left in other players' game world that when activated can show a ghost playing out their final moments, indicating how that person died and potentially helping the player avoid the same fate in advance. Players can also leave messages on the floor that can also help others such as forewarning safe or hostile positions, trap locations and tactics against enemies or bosses, among general comments.
When playing with other players, co-operative play allows up to three characters to team up in the host's game world where visiting players appear in soul form that can only be returned to their bodies when a boss is defeated. In competitive play, players can invade a player's adventure as a Black Phantom to engage in combat with the host player. If the Black Phantom kills the host, they can be returned to their body in their own game whereas if killed themselves, the host gains a portion of the Black Phantom's souls'

Fable2 had something like this where you could see other players running around the world while you were playing. I'm not sure it worked properly though.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Chrisj



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Oxford, UK



PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Protecting the launch is one of the things it really won't do, though. The pirates will pirate it anyway, and people like me won't buy it. The best possible effect is a decrease in the launch sales, even if they manage to avoid a humiliating UBI-style fiasco (where the servers were down for most of the launch weekend, meaning that only the pirates could play the game).

The problem with having single-player offline games insist on being online and doing stuff with the server is that (like every other form of DRM) it inconveniences paying customers at least as much as, and usually more than, the pirates. Server crash? ISP problem? Taken the laptop on holiday? Tough, only pirates can play like that. Company goes bust, or decides to stop supporting the game? Only pirates can play at all, ever again. If I'm paying a subscription for an MMO, then when the company goes bust, my subscription stops, and I'm only not-getting what I've not-paid-for (which is fair enough). But if I've paid for a single-player game, it shouldn't stop working just because someone else has decided there ought to be a time limit; my old Infocom games still work just fine, thanks.

The other problem is the attitude. When a company announces publicly that they think all their paying customers are evil thieving liars, I don't want to be one of those customers, and that's what always-online authentication is. I'm not a thief, and I don't like being called one. I particularly resent being treated as a thief by someone because I've bought something from them; it's difficult to think of logic more backwards.
Back to top
View user's profile
Johnh



Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 160



PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blizzard *claims* that they aren't doing this for DRM, but are instead trying to leverage Battle.net as a social platform, to connect friends playing different games together.

Which kind of makes a strange, twisted sense if you think about it. Social gaming has beat the triple A industry into the ground last year, and this might just be Blizzard trying to get a cut of the pie.

Or it might be a thinly veiled attempt at DRM, since Blizzard games are probably some of the most pirated games in history.
Back to top
View user's profile
Chrisj



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Oxford, UK



PostPosted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not convinced by the logic that if you force everyone to play as though they were in a multiplayer online game even when they're soloing that'll give you some magic mojo you can leverage into money.

I'll be interested to see what happens, particularly given that it looks as though we'll be getting Torchlight 2 at around the same time as Diablo 3. What with T2 costing half as much as D3, and Runic encouraging modding, non-internet play* and all the other things that the player base wants and Blizzard have said they won't allow, the relative sales of the two might tell us some things. (Assuming both games are otherwise good, of course, but I do have faith in the ability of both developers to deliver excellent playablity.)

*in the words of one wise individual "because LAN gaming is great, whereas ten people sharing one internet connection sucks"
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The more I think about it, Blizzard has always sucked. So really this is no NEW policy.

Warcraft was meh, Starcraft pushed the RTS Genre in the wrong direction, WOW defines the MMO genre.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NOooo, Starcraft was cool, one of my favourite all time games, I just played that thing to death, both single player and LAN (internet play is always a disaster).

What rts was/is better?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Total Annihilation is regarded by many to be the best RTS of it's erra. And since then the genre has shifted to "Be as close to starcraft as possible." which is a step backwards.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, now you're talking, my top 3 rts are Starcraft, TA and C&C (although the Command & Conquer sequels got a bit dull fairly quickly). I think TA was actually more popular than Starcraft in lan gaming sessions iirc.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Chrisj



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 95
Location: Oxford, UK



PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say that TA and Starcraft got different things right. TA's problem was that the two sides were basically identical, whereas Starcraft managed to have three sides with very different unit mixtures that were still well-balanced. TA: Kingdoms also did impressive things on that front (including one faction with no buildings at all, only creatures), with the advantages of having the TA engine underneath. Sadly, it also had some serious problems and by the time they were fixed, Cavedog was dead in the water.
Back to top
View user's profile
Weeble
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 1143
Location: Glasgow, Scotland



PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, LAN gaming.

Starcraft: Somebody builds an army twice as big as yours, but then everybody gangs up on him and kills him. Then you lose anyway.

Total Annihilation: Somebody builds an army twenty times as big as yours, then everybody gangs up on him, but he kills them all. Then you kamikaze your commander into his and it's a draw.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I remember Starcraft just being lovely single player, but on the LAN there could be 3 hours of digging in, expanding and poking at the enemy. In TA it just seemed to kick off faster and not get bogged down quite so often.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> Game Talk All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group