It's not really accurate to call the fact that you can only play online "DRM", any more than being unable to play without a keyboard and mouse is DRM. It's inherent in the game design, and it serves more purpose than just preventing copying.
Blizzard actually has a pretty lenient and I'd say modern approach to DRM. Which is that you buy a product key and you can then download and install the game -- for Windows or OS X -- as many times as you want on as many computers as you want. Any friend can come over and play on your computer on their own account -- assuming they have a valid account -- by simply logging in. I think that's pretty solid.
Now, whether you agree with Diablo 3's online only design or not is a different story. But it's not a DRM issue any more than the fact that WoW, EverQuest, Second Life or many other games cannot be played without being online. To label it as a DRM issue is disingenuous.
Personally I think the Real Money Auction House is stupid, and it definitely wasn't worth the tradeoff. But the decision has long since been made, the time for this discussion was long ago when the RMAH was announced. It was obvious at that time that local play would never be an option. People trying to have this discussion now missed the boat.
But most importantly, on this or any other issue, be honest about the discussion or you're undermining your point of view from the beginning.
"But it's not a DRM issue any more than the fact that WoW, EverQuest, Second Life or many other games cannot be played without being online. To label it as a DRM issue is disingenuous."
I disagree with this. EQ and WoW are fundamentally multi-player games. Without multiple players, the game ceases to be anything special. In both cases, there is extensive content that you cannot complete without large raiding teams.
The Diablo series however has always been a single-player game with an added multiplayer component. You don't need teammates to access any of the content, and you never have. A large portion of players play the entire game alone, which is something you could never even hope for in EQ or WoW.
I think a more apt comparison would be to something like Borderlands, which is a single-player game that can be played cooperatively with friends.
It has no bearing whatsoever what previous games in the series were.
Previous WarCraft games before WoW were playable alone or on LAN or what have you. WoW changed that.
Similarly, Diablo 3 has been designed from the start to be online only. You may disagree with this design decision, and that's fine (I also don't think the RMAH is worth it), but it's part of the design of the game.
There are absolutely no gameplay similarities between WoW and Warcraft, so don't compare the two. Literally the only thing common between those two games is the IP.
I do disagree with their online-only design decision and that is why I am voicing my disagreement. I don't see what point you are trying to make.
I think the objection here is that the game isn't actually multiplayer by design. There's nothing about the single-player gameplay that warrants requiring an internet connection.
I actually didn't know it was online only, and I've been playing it for a week. I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that if I didn't have an internet connection I could play in Offline mode. This is how single player titles on other platforms (e.g., HL2 on Steam) work, and it seemed like a reasonable assumption.
> There's nothing about the single-player gameplay that warrants requiring an internet connection.
If your goal is to get the achievements and even touch the Auction House for items [1], then yes, an online component is required. Diablo 1 and 2 had issues with client-side item duplication cheats. With server-side handling of item generation, that is no longer possible.
The only solution I can think of is letting players create entirely "single player only" characters, which will never be available online. Otherwise there's no (guaranteed) way to verify the save data hasn't been tampered with.
[1]: The Auction House dramatically amplify your statistics, as itemization is always behind your current level. So the idea is players ahead of you can sell items they find to the people behind them. Ultimately those ahead of everyone are not finding 'gear' for their level [2].
[2]: Okay, so "Inferno" mode is a "flat" curve where everything is technically your level, but the difficulty still ramps up, and item quality is still behind the curve.
The first Diablo was a mostly single player game with added multiplayer content. The second was either way you wanted to play it and definitely shined more in Multi than Single player play.
The third takes all the good lessons Blizzard has learned from WoW and SC2, and made a hypersocial experience that's tons of fun to play with people.
Borderlands is an interesting game to bring up: I've tried continually to play the game. It's a bit lacking by yourself, but with friends it's great. However the slightest internet blip loses progress in the game for whomever has it due to the player-hosted nature of the game. If the host loses internet for a small window, then everyone loses progress. Lag is horrendous as well on that game depending on who you play with.
Played entirely LAN based, BL was a lot of fun...but as soon as we lost about 40 minutes of playtime from a small interruption, we just stopped playing it.
I get you want your D1 experience back, but the D3 experience, as designed, is fantastic. Go play Kingdom's of Amantur or something like that if you want a great solo 1 player game. There are TONS out there in that genre. No one does phenomenal multiplayer like Blizzard does. There are tons of companies that do great single player. I'm very happy they committed heavily to multiplayer for this game.
In what way is online-only play inherent in the game's design? Be specific. It may be inherent in a few niche features, like the Auction House, but the actual substantive design of the game? I don't think so.
In any case, DRM is by definition an access control mechanism. Limiting post-sale access to your content by means of a mechanism that remains under their control is DRM, whether that DRM is part of the game's design or not.
Also your mouse-and-keyboard analogy is not apropos. Mice and keyboards are conventions of PC gaming, and even if they weren't, you could buy them and be done with it. Ditto a console or motion controller, and so on.
You can't, on the other hand, go buy a Battle.net and be done with it. Blizzard has put a system in place that perpetually limits your access to the content you've purchased. That's DRM.
An important point to add is that a number of users have had their accounts hacked. The current theory is that hackers are joining public games, gathering some info on the players there, and then spoofing their credentials to the server.
So while (and if) public multiplayer games aren't safe to play, this really is an online-only singleplayer game.
99% of the time when battle.net accounts are hacked, it's from keyloggers on internet sites that revolve around the game. They even sell keyfobs with one time codes (I got one with SC2 that also works for Diablo), that help greatly with this problem.
Blizzard has stated that this is not the case. All hacks have been by people getting their passwords stolen, and all of the recent hacks have been without an authenticator, or before one was added to the account.
I love the "blizzard hosts the game" aspect of D3. Sure, the login servers going up and down there was a bit annoying, but the HYPER social nature of the game make is fantastic. It is almost impossible for me to play by myself (and I mean that in a good way) due to friends constantly dropping in, doing a level or so with me, then heading out. It has definitely consumed quite a few evenings last week.
After trying to play Magicka, Borderlands and Dungeon Defenders with friends, but constantly being defeated from minor internet blips cancelling games, I hope all multiplayer games go this "must play on our servers" route.
The FSF needs to STFU and get their hands off. They are simply attacking Diablo 3 because it is popular (they didn't touch SC2 with their defective 'defective by design' campaign. The FSF needs to troll to keep the income going.
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] threadBlizzard actually has a pretty lenient and I'd say modern approach to DRM. Which is that you buy a product key and you can then download and install the game -- for Windows or OS X -- as many times as you want on as many computers as you want. Any friend can come over and play on your computer on their own account -- assuming they have a valid account -- by simply logging in. I think that's pretty solid.
Now, whether you agree with Diablo 3's online only design or not is a different story. But it's not a DRM issue any more than the fact that WoW, EverQuest, Second Life or many other games cannot be played without being online. To label it as a DRM issue is disingenuous.
Personally I think the Real Money Auction House is stupid, and it definitely wasn't worth the tradeoff. But the decision has long since been made, the time for this discussion was long ago when the RMAH was announced. It was obvious at that time that local play would never be an option. People trying to have this discussion now missed the boat.
But most importantly, on this or any other issue, be honest about the discussion or you're undermining your point of view from the beginning.
I disagree with this. EQ and WoW are fundamentally multi-player games. Without multiple players, the game ceases to be anything special. In both cases, there is extensive content that you cannot complete without large raiding teams.
The Diablo series however has always been a single-player game with an added multiplayer component. You don't need teammates to access any of the content, and you never have. A large portion of players play the entire game alone, which is something you could never even hope for in EQ or WoW.
I think a more apt comparison would be to something like Borderlands, which is a single-player game that can be played cooperatively with friends.
Previous WarCraft games before WoW were playable alone or on LAN or what have you. WoW changed that.
Similarly, Diablo 3 has been designed from the start to be online only. You may disagree with this design decision, and that's fine (I also don't think the RMAH is worth it), but it's part of the design of the game.
I do disagree with their online-only design decision and that is why I am voicing my disagreement. I don't see what point you are trying to make.
I actually didn't know it was online only, and I've been playing it for a week. I had assumed (apparently incorrectly) that if I didn't have an internet connection I could play in Offline mode. This is how single player titles on other platforms (e.g., HL2 on Steam) work, and it seemed like a reasonable assumption.
If your goal is to get the achievements and even touch the Auction House for items [1], then yes, an online component is required. Diablo 1 and 2 had issues with client-side item duplication cheats. With server-side handling of item generation, that is no longer possible.
The only solution I can think of is letting players create entirely "single player only" characters, which will never be available online. Otherwise there's no (guaranteed) way to verify the save data hasn't been tampered with.
[1]: The Auction House dramatically amplify your statistics, as itemization is always behind your current level. So the idea is players ahead of you can sell items they find to the people behind them. Ultimately those ahead of everyone are not finding 'gear' for their level [2].
[2]: Okay, so "Inferno" mode is a "flat" curve where everything is technically your level, but the difficulty still ramps up, and item quality is still behind the curve.
The third takes all the good lessons Blizzard has learned from WoW and SC2, and made a hypersocial experience that's tons of fun to play with people.
Borderlands is an interesting game to bring up: I've tried continually to play the game. It's a bit lacking by yourself, but with friends it's great. However the slightest internet blip loses progress in the game for whomever has it due to the player-hosted nature of the game. If the host loses internet for a small window, then everyone loses progress. Lag is horrendous as well on that game depending on who you play with.
Played entirely LAN based, BL was a lot of fun...but as soon as we lost about 40 minutes of playtime from a small interruption, we just stopped playing it.
I get you want your D1 experience back, but the D3 experience, as designed, is fantastic. Go play Kingdom's of Amantur or something like that if you want a great solo 1 player game. There are TONS out there in that genre. No one does phenomenal multiplayer like Blizzard does. There are tons of companies that do great single player. I'm very happy they committed heavily to multiplayer for this game.
In any case, DRM is by definition an access control mechanism. Limiting post-sale access to your content by means of a mechanism that remains under their control is DRM, whether that DRM is part of the game's design or not.
Also your mouse-and-keyboard analogy is not apropos. Mice and keyboards are conventions of PC gaming, and even if they weren't, you could buy them and be done with it. Ditto a console or motion controller, and so on.
You can't, on the other hand, go buy a Battle.net and be done with it. Blizzard has put a system in place that perpetually limits your access to the content you've purchased. That's DRM.
So while (and if) public multiplayer games aren't safe to play, this really is an online-only singleplayer game.
After trying to play Magicka, Borderlands and Dungeon Defenders with friends, but constantly being defeated from minor internet blips cancelling games, I hope all multiplayer games go this "must play on our servers" route.