For Obvious Reasons, Diablo III's Real Money Auction House Won't Launch On Time

Oooh, okay. That explains why everyone is in such a frenzy to level up and get the best loot. They're trying to turn it into a source of income. How cute.

FYI, servers definitely not running smooth. Still HUGE lag spikes (2000 msec+) when playing solo and co-op. Only time it's been relatively smooth (I'm talking 200ms ping, still not good but "Green" by Diablo 3 standards) was early morning solo when all the kids were probably still in bed.

@HotSauceMagik : Of course, that assumes it's actually 10+ years. :) (I know, everything in the track record appears that it would be, but I'm always reminded of that line of "Past performance is not an indicator of future events."

About "games as product not being serviceable in a modern economy" - I think it all depends on what type of profit margin you require, and what the consumer is willing to accept. If the title in question wasn't Diablo III, I think there would be a lot less tolerance for this type of system, especially since 'always on' doesn't add anything fundamental to the gameplay. This game is configured like a MMORPG, but it's not a MMORPG. The only game feature I've seen that seems to require the always on requirement are the auction houses - everything else in the game can (and/or has) been implemented in ways that doesn't require connection to a server.

The problem for Blizzard (and Activision/Blizzard) is that they know the WoW gravy train can't last forever. So, what they're looking for isn't just a hit game - because that's only worth a year of revenue, no matter how big. It's like a perverse addiction -- they've now become addicted to a monthly revenue stream. They need something recurring, and Diablo III + Real Money Auction House does that.

They're not the only one, BTW, Valve is in the same boat - except, since their cash cow is Steam (something that people will never get tired of because it's a utility, not an experience) , they're pretty much set unless they do something completely and utterly insane, or there's a massive paradigm shift in the way content delivery occurs (like, for example, if Net Neutrality completely fails and each major ISP creates their own little kingdom of network access.)

So, to summarize: maybe the way I'm thinking is old-fashioned, but I don't think it's old-fashioned in a bad way. The issue here isn't sustainability - the issue here is pure capitalism: how much can you get people to pay for a product? In this case, Blizzard is betting they can get people to shell out $60 plus however much they get from fees from the real money auction house plus whatever other fees they can charge down the road. (Monthly server maintenance fee, anyone?)

I don't blame them, that's capitalism at work -- but we're not going down this road because we have to do this in order to get good games. We're going down this road because this corporation has the power to extract this much money from the consumer base, and enough of the consumer base is willing to play along. It's just like cell phone data plans, cable TV subscriptions, most professional sports franchises et al. - they charge not what they think is fair, they charge what the market will bear.

JGH

@ghoti221: I agree its a completely different value proposition. And I know everyone's standards are different for what constitutes "a good value" but I can't help feeling like 60 bones for 10+ years of the super high quality production that D3 is, is not a bad one.

I guess what this boils down to is the way we purchase and play games as a media and really all media in general, are changing. They're in the awkward teen years where the future is uncertain and every new product is trying to find there own way . They want to take the car out, stay out late and hang around malls all day. We as the generations who grew up in the infancy of take-home media want things the way they always have been. Go to a store, buy a thing, take it home; yours for ever. Unfortunately, I don't think that way is sustainable anymore in today's economy.

@HotSauceMagik, @Undeadpool : Given that my most recent play experience of Diablo II was less than a year ago (not a full run, just Act I), you'd be surprised how often I pull something from my bookshelf. :)

In terms of offline play -- as other people have pointed out, most evidence points to this game being more like WoW in technical structure, as opposed to a single player game with online DRM (e.g. Ubisoft.) So, the challenge in making this single player, would be the analogous to trying to make WoW single player - technically challenging, very time consuming, and very expensive. If they're at a point where they're going to shut the servers down due to decreasing revenue, it's extremely unlikely they're going to spend the money to throw a twenty or thirty person team at it for six months to make it single player. The old Blizzard pre-Vivendi days might have done it, but Blizzard as a part of Activision Blizzard always has to keep an eye on the bottom line.

Likewise, remember, there's a cost difference between throwing out a patch every so often, versus throwing out a patch and maintaining the servers required to serve the existing game population. I'd like to think Blizzard would keep the servers up for a decade. But, as I said above, Blizzard is a part of a larger corporation, which has one purpose - extract maximum value for the shareholders.

I'm not dissing Diablo III as a bad game - far from it. I'm just pointing out that the way the game is delivered to the users is different, and that difference is 'game as service' as opposed to 'game as product.' You do not own a copy of Diablo III, you're leasing it until Blizzard says you cannot play it anymore. And for me, personally, the way I evaluate value of "game as service" versus "game as product" is completely different.

JGH

@Veiasma said:

@Aetheldod said:

And I hope it is a short future :/ but not likely tho

people said the same thing about steam when it launched.

now its "the savior of PC gaming"...

Which shows how desperate PC elitists are...

@FateOfNever said:

They "didn't know this was coming." Trust me, if Blizzard knew that their launch was going to be this bad, they wouldn't have launched it when they did. Blizzard doesn't WANT this. Blizzard doesn't want this horrible start. Between bad impressions, money going to paying workers over time because they need to keep people on to try and fix all this shit in time, potential damage to their servers or needing to pay more money into rebuilding and fixing problems, this isn't something Blizzard knew was coming nor something they wanted.

12 years. They had 12 years to get this shit right and they didn't. They run WoW for gods sake, you'd think they'd take that experience and the 12 years they had to get this game made and out the door to properly prepare. Or am I completely unreasonable in thinking that a game that has been in development for 12 years made by the guys that practically wrote the book on massive online gaming worlds should be blindsided by their own success? I think Blizzard could've had absolutely zero problems on day one. I really do.

@FateOfNever said:

Like I said, and I stress this part, if it works perfectly, you wouldn't see or notice any difference. It did not work perfectly.

I know. I got booted 6 times in a game I was playing all by my lonesome. No excuse for that. Ever. And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his ass whenever he hopped. Doesn't matter if could or will work perfectly one day. It didn't. That leaves me with a sense that at any time I could be dropped from a game I'm playing without a justifiable reason and I don't like that feeling. I don't like having the dread of trying to watch out for check points in case I get dropped from my effectively single player game for a million different reasons that are outside my control. Leaving your customer holding the bag with a WTF? look on their face is no way to treat a customer. In any industry.

@FateOfNever said:

...or look at Amazon and go "dude, their server hosting blew up one day and that took a lot of my favorite sites off line, go fuck Amazon."

Apples to oranges. Amazon had a hardware failure, and all the Whiskey sites were offline because they chose not to mirror their sites in other Amazon servers. Will said something about that on the Tested podcast. Hardware failures/outages aren't the same as piss poor planning and stupid game design decisions based on money and not "to prevent cheating" like Blizzard claims. Amazon going down was a legitimate failure that people couldn't have seen coming, and those that chose not to prepare for it suffered. Had they chosen to mirror their sites no one would have been affected.

@FateOfNever said:

But, I want to ask you - you've already spent the 60$ for the game. Blizzard already has your money. So why, in let's say six months from now, would you continue to look at your 60$ game and go "Nope, I don't even want to try and experience this game because I had one bad experience that probably no longer exists, but, go fuck Blizzard because they weren't gods among men and weren't flawless, perfect beings."? That money is already spent, you already have the game, why not revisit it down the line after problems get fixed? I'm not talking about giving Blizzard a free pass, but the only one that really gets hurt from that is you because you've already spent that money, and if one negative experience was enough to turn you off from a company completely for forever, you weren't ever going to be a long time Blizzard fan anyway.

I didn't buy the game precisely because I wanted to test out how it ran on my MacBook (flawlessly graphics wise which I was very, very happy to see), and to see what kind of gameplay issues would surface. I understand there would be launch day issues so I waited, maybe not long enough apparently, but I waited. While I got right on today with no issue, I got dropped another 2 times. First time was 15 minutes in, the second was about 45 minutes later with no checkpoint reached because I cover every square inch before moving on. One was my fault (router burped) and the other must have been Blizzard. I was playing all by myself and the second time it went down I had to do a whole area all over again, all my items and gold magically disappeared. Not confidence inspiring. I'll admit I can't hold the router burp on them, and I don't. But what happens next time? Say it works swimmingly for a week and then one day the server decides it's version of my character and my computers version aren't right, boots me out and I lose all my shit again? Is that fair to me? I know I haven't bought it but that doesn't fill me with confidence as a customer for any company, not just Blizzard. I don't hold this game design decision just against them, I don't like it wherever it exists.

I've been a fan of Blizzard since the first SC. I loved it. Great game. Tried WoW and thought it was mind-numbingly stupid and boring (for me, not as a judgement on the game). I bought SC2, haven't played it all the way through but it's been a shit ton of fun for me the entire time I've played it, though I'm really bad at it and would have zero chance online. I figured, what the hell let's try Diablo. A friend of mine from way back loved it and I never really got into it but it looked interesting. I decided to see if I could "try before you buy" and a friend gave me a guest pass. It was sort of a blessing he did because had they given me the chance to play without being connected I wouldn't have known I could be booted at any time for thousands of reason I don't have control over and the only person being penalized by this would be me. Blizzard doesn't care if I lose some gold and a sweet hat. "Tough shit, we did it so people wouldn't cheat." they'd say and I'd be boned. All because of a game design decision they took not to prevent cheating as their primary goal, but to make as much money selling items that cost them absolutely nothing to make. I don't like that. It leaves me stomping the bag of dogshit on the doorstep while the homeowner laughs at me. I'm the only one with anything to lose here and it could happen at any time.

All that being said, even with all the troubles I've had and the feelings of dread it has left me when I think about really getting into the game, I'm seriously thinking about buying. Call me a sellout or whatever you want, I deserve it. But this game is seriously fun for a first time player. I've just got to decide if I want to support a company that willingly puts the customers balls in a vise after the sale with no recourse for recovering lost items from circumstances outside their control. I know the customer can walk away, but a business shouldn't have those stipulations in place if you want to use their product. Had they said in the game that you can play offline but never use anything from there online, I would've clicked that check box and never looked back. I know they don't have to bend to my will, obviously the product doesn't fit my needs. I just wish Blizzard would've casted a wider net for those wanting to play the game but don't care about online play. Maybe I'm an idiot, maybe I'm expecting too much. But I really want to play this game and that first experience left a really bad taste in my mouth when it didn't need to.

If I do decide to purchase this game it'll be simply to play multiplayer, in that arena I understand and am completely okay with hiccups. Happens to me all the time in Steam games and BF3 (which I seriously regret buying). I wouldn't be the slightest bit miffed if something went wrong there at all and wouldn't think badly of Blizzard if things did go south. That comes with the territory. I understand that your friends can drop in and out of the game whenever they wish, I feel there should be an option to stop that and play solo all the way if you want. A few of my friends have this already and are really liking it, and being on the outside looking in I want to play too. I've just got to decide whether or not I want to support these game design decisions or not. So far I really don't like it because I can't even try the game out on my own without it failing on me. Out of a total 8 failures, one has been my fault and having the sense of sitting on a ticking time bomb that shoudn't be makes me very much dislike Blizzards decisions. I'll still play the hell out of StarCraft 2, it's a great game. But I'll think very hard and very serious about purchasing Diablo simply because I have no control over what happens if I want to just sit down and zone out. I haven't given up completely because I've had a shitload of fun when I did get to play it, but Blizzard didn't help their case by being caught with their pants down on day 1.

@Undeadpool:

I agree with everything you say here. I just wanted to assert that single player D3 is not something that's going to happen with anything I'd call a "patch". It'll be a major undertaking, whether implemented by Blizzard, or reverse engineered by a player community.

@LordCmdrStryker said:

@depecheload said:

I cannot imagine that there isn't a better way to handle that though. It's utterly pathetic.

They could have handled it by giving options for online characters and offline characters, but just like Starcraft 2 they want to eliminate as much piracy as possible, so online is your only option. Any other reasons they give for it are secondary to preventing people from stealing it.

On this story, I did get the achievements disappearing bug, which was really annoying. I'm not sure how many I've already gone past that haven't popped back up. Not real worried cuz I'm sure I'll play thru with all classes, but still slightly bothersome. And another symptom of their problematic online requirement.

You do realize you wouldn't be getting any achievements if you weren't online anyways because there is no way to confirm that you actually earned them.

@e_p said:

@Undeadpool:

I'm definitely not a doomsayer, and I don't think the D3 servers are going anywhere in a hurry. But hoping that the game will at any point be patched to not require Blizzard servers is highly optimistic. The client we have on our discs lacks a significant amount of functionality required for the game to run, persistence for starters. You'd essentially have to create a system similar to realm emulation, runnable on a home computer, for the client to connect to. That's a significant task.

Some crazed open-source fanatic is probably working on that already, though.

I see this argument against always online games constantly, but frankly no one's ever really had to grapple with it on this level, so it's ALL hearsay and conjecture at this point. The only precedent (on the proper level) is servers of super-iterative games shutting down previous editions' servers LONG after they've passed into obsolescence.

@ghoti221: I totally agree with you, but don't forget, this is a company that still puts out patches for 10 year old games (Diablo 2). If I were a betting man, I'd say these servers will be online for at least 15 years. In all likelyhood there will be a way to play it offline by then but chances are you will be long done with the game.

@FateOfNever: I really don't understand how people don't get this. Its a business decision for blizzard and ends up working in our favor in the end.

I bought the game the day after it came out. Sat down to play and have not experienced one single issue at all. Should things have perhaps gone better, given Blizzards past experience? Probably. But the world has only seen MMO style games for about 10 years; and the super mega popularity within the last 5 or so. These things will be ironed out over time but the shitty entitlement attitudes of some people on the internet is downright depressing.

@Undeadpool:

I'm definitely not a doomsayer, and I don't think the D3 servers are going anywhere in a hurry. But hoping that the game will at any point be patched to not require Blizzard servers is highly optimistic. The client we have on our discs lacks a significant amount of functionality required for the game to run, persistence for starters. You'd essentially have to create a system similar to realm emulation, runnable on a home computer, for the client to connect to. That's a significant task.

Some crazed open-source fanatic is probably working on that already, though.

@BBAlpert:

Also, not everyone has the *option* of "high speed internet".

Its so hard for people to get that in their head...ISPs, like your utility companies, only set up shop where they think they can make money. The end users don't get any real choice over who serves them what.

@ghoti221: Or they'll patch it to be playable offline since, when the servers go down, there won't be any cause for the real-world money auction house anymore. But preach on, doomsayer!

I really hope this always online system doesn't creep its way onto consoles. I'll always have an internet connection to them, but there's still too many things that can go wrong at any point to cause failures and keep me from playing.

I haven't been able to follow the full comment thread, but, having seen a bunch of the press out there, I think people are missing something.

The issue here, to me, is the fact that Blizzard took a really good single player game, and turned it into (by all accounts) a really good single player game with MMORPG trappings.

However, the MMORPG setup means the company decides when you're done with the game, not you. At some point, Blizzard is going to turn the servers off, and you won't be able to play Diablo III anymore. In other words, when you buy a copy of Diablo III, you're betting that the day you get tired of the game and never, ever want to play it again is before the day that Blizzard decides that maintaining the Diablo III infrastructure is too costly and shuts everything down.

If you view Diablo III in the light of a single player experience, all the problems over the past several days were inexcusable. If you view Diablo III in the light of a multi-player experience, all the problems are expected (though, once again, very worrying that even Blizzard with all the time and resources poured into the game couldn't get it right - or didn't want to get it right.)

To me, that's why I don't think the value proposition is there - for games like Diablo III, I want an uncompromised single-player experience, played whenever I want to, when I want to, even if that's ten years from now. I don't want to have to worry about network latency, server queues, maintenance periods et al. for a game that I'll only ever play with my wife and/or my brother - at least, not at $60.

JGH

The only thing more obnoxious than people complaining about a service or event is people complaining about people complaining.

@YukoAsho: It's illegal in some countries to speak badly about Zelda. They have jails for people bad mouthing it and they force them to play Wind Waker every day until they learn to appreciate it.

@satansmagichat:

hawk

verb(usedwithobject)

1.topeddleorofferforsalebycallingaloudinpublic.

2.toadvertiseorofferforsale:tohawksoapontelevision.

This is why next-gen consoles should stay offline

@kollay: Yeah, I found the AH interface to be real spotty at times. Sometimes it would not reorder the items, go blank when I switch pages, or even freeze altogether when clicking the search button. I browsed it today, however, and it seemed better, not sure if they tinkered with anything or if I was just lucky.

So you get the money? Odd concept.

Navigating the AH has been a pain, atleast for me. Other than that, the game is silky smooth like a newborn's ass or melted butter for your popcorn.

What?

Game is great.

"hocking", Mr. Navarro. That's what people do at pawn shops and Gamestops. "hocking"

@HKZ said:

@FateOfNever said:

At that point they get completely turned off from the experience and the game and bail.

I knew there was going to be an online connection requirement but decided to give it a try anyway. I got booted 6 times playing all by myself over the last two days and guess what? I got completely turned off by the experience and bailed. How's that for good planning? Playing all by my lonesome to see what it was like, get a feel for the story and see the set pieces, but nope! Couldn't do any of that because I kept getting booted back to the menu. How am I realistically going to get interested in the game if I can't even play by myself? They had the potential to make a lot of money off me and the first impression was awful. Blizzard got one chance to suck me into Diablo and blew it. Horribly. Launch day problems are no excuse, I wanted to test the game and it failed. Spectacularly. They knew the shitstorm was coming and guys like me that wanted (really wanted) to try out Diablo and be impressed with it are left with a horrible impression and are never coming back.

The only thing I am impressed about the game is the fact that it ran smooth as butter on my MacBook (Windows 7) graphically without having to turn anything important off. Other than that it was a shitty experience and Blizzard screwed themselves out of a single sale and maybe years of continuous revenue.

They "didn't know this was coming." Trust me, if Blizzard knew that their launch was going to be this bad, they wouldn't have launched it when they did. Blizzard doesn't WANT this. Blizzard doesn't want this horrible start. Between bad impressions, money going to paying workers over time because they need to keep people on to try and fix all this shit in time, potential damage to their servers or needing to pay more money into rebuilding and fixing problems, this isn't something Blizzard knew was coming nor something they wanted.

Like I said, and I stress this part, if it works perfectly, you wouldn't see or notice any difference. It did not work perfectly. You are well within your rights to hold this against them, even if I feel judging a company 'forever' based on something like this isn't fair. I don't look at Sony and go "man, they got hacked and their online was down for over a month because of it, fuck Sony for forever." or look at Amazon and go "dude, their server hosting blew up one day and that took a lot of my favorite sites off line, go fuck Amazon." because I understand that shit happens that people weren't prepared for, perhaps could not be prepared for, and just because it was a bad situation and I happened to experience part of that bad situation doesn't mean I should grab a torch and pitchfork and start screaming for Dr. Frankenstein's blood.

But, I want to ask you - you've already spent the 60$ for the game. Blizzard already has your money. So why, in let's say six months from now, would you continue to look at your 60$ game and go "Nope, I don't even want to try and experience this game because I had one bad experience that probably no longer exists, but, go fuck Blizzard because they weren't gods among men and weren't flawless, perfect beings."? That money is already spent, you already have the game, why not revisit it down the line after problems get fixed? I'm not talking about giving Blizzard a free pass, but the only one that really gets hurt from that is you because you've already spent that money, and if one negative experience was enough to turn you off from a company completely for forever, you weren't ever going to be a long time Blizzard fan anyway.

@n8: http://penny-arcade.com/2012/05/16

@FateOfNever said:

At that point they get completely turned off from the experience and the game and bail.

I knew there was going to be an online connection requirement but decided to give it a try anyway. I got booted 6 times playing all by myself over the last two days and guess what? I got completely turned off by the experience and bailed. How's that for good planning? Playing all by my lonesome to see what it was like, get a feel for the story and see the set pieces, but nope! Couldn't do any of that because I kept getting booted back to the menu. How am I realistically going to get interested in the game if I can't even play by myself? They had the potential to make a lot of money off me and the first impression was awful. Blizzard got one chance to suck me into Diablo and blew it. Horribly. Launch day problems are no excuse, I wanted to test the game and it failed. Spectacularly. They knew the shitstorm was coming and guys like me that wanted (really wanted) to try out Diablo and be impressed with it are left with a horrible impression and are never coming back.

The only thing I am impressed about the game is the fact that it ran smooth as butter on my MacBook (Windows 7) graphically without having to turn anything important off. Other than that it was a shitty experience and Blizzard screwed themselves out of a single sale and maybe years of continuous revenue.

@YukoAsho said:

@BoomSnapClap113 said:

Omg people.

Shut the fuck up and either play the game, or don't play the game.

How about you shut the fuck up? People paid a shit ton of money for this game and aren't happy that they've been dicked around. This isn't Retake Mass Effect; this is a legitimate concern, and people like you wouldn't be coming out of the woodwork to shout the dissatisfied people down if it weren't for the fact Blizzard made it.

No, people paid an average amount of money for a game that suffered a few days of launch jank. It seems to be relatively stable now, and if it weren't for the fact that Blizzard made it, people wouldn't be making such a big fucking deal about it.

Either settle down and wait until it's perfectly stable, or deal with the few problems that it suffers from at this moment. Bitching and whining on the internet isn't getting anybody anywhere...

Seeing a full comment section full of nothing but arguments and complaints for something that is pretty normal (especially in online PC games) is annoying and childish.

@BoomSnapClap113 said:

Omg people.

Shut the fuck up and either play the game, or don't play the game.

How about you shut the fuck up? People paid a shit ton of money for this game and aren't happy that they've been dicked around. This isn't Retake Mass Effect; this is a legitimate concern, and people like you wouldn't be coming out of the woodwork to shout the dissatisfied people down if it weren't for the fact Blizzard made it.

@n8 said:

Sigh... these trash-on-Diablo posts are starting to get really fucking old.

Perhaps, but not unearned. As @Humanity says, Blizzard isn't a company without experience in the field of online gaming servers.

I will say this, I'm actually relieved by the reaction people are having. It shows that there still exist gamers and media outlets who won't let Blizzard get away with laziness. I was convinced for a while there that they'd reached Nintendo levels of untouchable.

I definitely wouldn't have bought this game in the first place if it wasn't Blizzard. At least I know they'll keep things running for a decade at least.

It's still a big tic against the game though. It feels like very much was compromised just to get that auction house running as intended, a feature I abhor in the first place. I often wonder if this game was made for the right reasons or the wrong reasons.

You know, sometimes it feels good to play a game that doesn't treat me like a fucking criminal.

Which is why I don't have D3.

Omg people.

Shut the fuck up and either play the game, or don't play the game.

You'd think after what 8 years of WoW Blizzard would know by now how to launch a game that requires online. -_-

ya know, i was mad about the error 37 stuff too.... then i played the game.... it's a damn good game and i would like to see how the pvp comes out, and not having cheaters in the auction houses will also help the game in the long run. once people stop crying they'll realize how fun this game is.

@crusader8463 said:

@FateOfNever said:

@deerokus said:

@FateOfNever said:

@depecheload said:

Someone tell me how Blizzard's plan of forcing you to play this online does anything good for the consumer at all?

Not buying this. It's broken. I'll give Torchlight 2 a chance though.

It prevents cheaters. That's something good for the consumer. It also prevents people from going "but I totally spent like three months playing this guy to get him to hell mode and now I can't play him with friends? I do nots understand why my single player character cannot be taken to an online mode? I are confused and now I will rages!" and make no mistake, there would be just as much rage about that as there is about these launch day problems because people, as a whole, are idiots and have become so spoiled and cannot comprehend things like that anymore that they would throw just as much of a fit about it. There could also be other benefits that I don't know about. So there, some benefits for the consumers and for Blizzard to not have to deal with idiot people. And Blizzard not having to deal with idiot people is a benefit to consumers because it means they can put their efforts to more worthwhile things. Like people getting their accounts hacked because they refuse to use proper security measures when dealing with their accounts.

If Joe Bloggs just wants to play co-op together with a friend and his girlfriend, why would he care that some guy thousands of miles away has cheated to clone some items? It has no effect on the consumer playing single player or private co-op with friends. These are not good reasons.

NB: I have never actually played a Diablo game and they didn't seem to even try to market this game to people like me. I would probably never have bought it anyway. Still, the whole scandal is interesting to me as they seem to have vociferous defenders on forums, which baffles me. They're a corporation who have screwed up here, they don't need your free attempts at PR.

I never said "everyone cares if someone cheats." But it's just as likely that thousands of people would eventually go "huh, I feel like checking out this pvp thing they got going on" when it launches... and then hit a giant fucking brick wall of people with invincible characters with gear that lets them one shot other people that aren't likewise made immortal by hacked characters and gear. At that point they get completely turned off from the experience and the game and bail.

It also effects people that attempt to use the AH; gold based or real money based, as suddenly people dupe items, and make both auction houses total crap shows of nothing but hacked items, which can affect people.

On top of all of that, if Diablo 3 ends up with a ladder the way Diablo 2 had a ladder, hacking and cheating also completely destroys that.

Random person A may not be effected. Random person B may be effected. Why is random person A, in your scenario, more important than random person B?

And why is person B more important than person A in yours? No matter what they do they are going to piss off one group or the other. They choose to piss off group A and give B what they want. That's it.

The difference there is that when the system works - and so far it has not work and I'm not defending that part of it other than telling people that think Blizzard was just being lazy about this problem or that they didn't throw enough money at it to make sure they were prepared that they have no idea how this stuff works - but when the system works, person A is not affected. Person A, when the system is working, is unaffected by the always on and Person B is also saved from problems.

Let's take Joe Bloggs as an example. Diablo 3 is not always online. Joe Bloggs can play the game offline by himself, sweet! Joe Bloggs then decides he wants to play online with his friend Timmy Tutoes. Except Joe Bloggs has to create an entirely new character to do as such because he didn't bother reading the part of offline mode that told him he could not take that character online due to issues with hacking. Joe Bloggs is now pissed off and decides he'll never play multiplayer and that he's done with D3 because of something so stupid. Or how about Joe Bloggs decides it's worth it to start all over again. Now he's forced to play online and... it's just like if D3 had always on, any time he wants to work on his character that he can play with Timmy Tutoes, he's subject to what he would already be subject to the way the game is now. However, here's the catch, Timmy Tutoes who has strictly played online got incredibly turned off by the game because of bull shit hackers ruining his experience in some way. So now Joe Bloggs can't play with Timmy Tutoes because Timmy Tutoes had his experience ruined by the thing that always on helps fight against while Joe Bloggs is now playing by the rules that always on would want him to abide by anyway.

So where's the difference here? Joe Bloggs can work on a different character that he can never take online? Which is a benefit that can also be a negative. While Timmy Tutoes is left to deal with the possible ramifications of hackers flooding the AH, creating broken items, and destroying the entire online aspect of Diablo 3 for a very large portion of the player base (whether it be because they bought hacked gear for 20 dollars that now makes them invincible and thus trivializes the entire game, because PvP is completely busted, because the ladder system is completely borked due to cheaters, etc.) And Blizzard is also left with having to deal with trying to clean up the whole mess and has to put in two, three, four times the effort to try and just keep the game free from hacked gear that breaks their game, cheaters in pvp for a better experience for everyone that wants to do that, a fair playing field for the potentially in the future but not existing right now ladder.

The downside is that when always on breaks, it really fucking sucks. But guess what, it sucks for everyone, both the people that understand WHY it's in place and the people that cannot fathom why people don't want other people cheating because they only care about themselves and their own experiences and not at all about what other people have to experience in the game. But the point I've been trying to make since that first reply was that there are, in fact, reasons for always on. People may not agree with them, people may not think they matter, but there are, in fact, reasons why always on exists for Diablo 3 regardless of whether they think those things may affect them this very minute or not, but they could affect them in the future.

It also comes up that the people that want to play through Diablo 3 once, by themselves, and never touch it again, always on doesn't affect them that much. It will affect them for their one play through, and then they're done with the game and it will never bother them again or hamper their experience of the game again. Where as the people that want to play online, want to play with other people, this is exactly the experience they would have anyway so it doesn't affect them at all.

Um anyone got a spare code for the starter edition for Diablo 3? I will remember this the next time the steam sale comes along.

@n8 said:

Sigh... these trash-on-Diablo posts are starting to get really fucking old.

@FateOfNever said:

@deerokus said:

@FateOfNever said:

@depecheload said:

Someone tell me how Blizzard's plan of forcing you to play this online does anything good for the consumer at all?

Not buying this. It's broken. I'll give Torchlight 2 a chance though.

It prevents cheaters. That's something good for the consumer. It also prevents people from going "but I totally spent like three months playing this guy to get him to hell mode and now I can't play him with friends? I do nots understand why my single player character cannot be taken to an online mode? I are confused and now I will rages!" and make no mistake, there would be just as much rage about that as there is about these launch day problems because people, as a whole, are idiots and have become so spoiled and cannot comprehend things like that anymore that they would throw just as much of a fit about it. There could also be other benefits that I don't know about. So there, some benefits for the consumers and for Blizzard to not have to deal with idiot people. And Blizzard not having to deal with idiot people is a benefit to consumers because it means they can put their efforts to more worthwhile things. Like people getting their accounts hacked because they refuse to use proper security measures when dealing with their accounts.

If Joe Bloggs just wants to play co-op together with a friend and his girlfriend, why would he care that some guy thousands of miles away has cheated to clone some items? It has no effect on the consumer playing single player or private co-op with friends. These are not good reasons.

NB: I have never actually played a Diablo game and they didn't seem to even try to market this game to people like me. I would probably never have bought it anyway. Still, the whole scandal is interesting to me as they seem to have vociferous defenders on forums, which baffles me. They're a corporation who have screwed up here, they don't need your free attempts at PR.

I never said "everyone cares if someone cheats." But it's just as likely that thousands of people would eventually go "huh, I feel like checking out this pvp thing they got going on" when it launches... and then hit a giant fucking brick wall of people with invincible characters with gear that lets them one shot other people that aren't likewise made immortal by hacked characters and gear. At that point they get completely turned off from the experience and the game and bail.

It also effects people that attempt to use the AH; gold based or real money based, as suddenly people dupe items, and make both auction houses total crap shows of nothing but hacked items, which can affect people.

On top of all of that, if Diablo 3 ends up with a ladder the way Diablo 2 had a ladder, hacking and cheating also completely destroys that.

Random person A may not be effected. Random person B may be effected. Why is random person A, in your scenario, more important than random person B?

And why is person B more important than person A in yours? No matter what they do they are going to piss off one group or the other. They choose to piss off group A and give B what they want. That's it.

@deerokus said:

@FateOfNever said:

@depecheload said:

Someone tell me how Blizzard's plan of forcing you to play this online does anything good for the consumer at all?

Not buying this. It's broken. I'll give Torchlight 2 a chance though.

It prevents cheaters. That's something good for the consumer. It also prevents people from going "but I totally spent like three months playing this guy to get him to hell mode and now I can't play him with friends? I do nots understand why my single player character cannot be taken to an online mode? I are confused and now I will rages!" and make no mistake, there would be just as much rage about that as there is about these launch day problems because people, as a whole, are idiots and have become so spoiled and cannot comprehend things like that anymore that they would throw just as much of a fit about it. There could also be other benefits that I don't know about. So there, some benefits for the consumers and for Blizzard to not have to deal with idiot people. And Blizzard not having to deal with idiot people is a benefit to consumers because it means they can put their efforts to more worthwhile things. Like people getting their accounts hacked because they refuse to use proper security measures when dealing with their accounts.

If Joe Bloggs just wants to play co-op together with a friend and his girlfriend, why would he care that some guy thousands of miles away has cheated to clone some items? It has no effect on the consumer playing single player or private co-op with friends. These are not good reasons.

NB: I have never actually played a Diablo game and they didn't seem to even try to market this game to people like me. I would probably never have bought it anyway. Still, the whole scandal is interesting to me as they seem to have vociferous defenders on forums, which baffles me. They're a corporation who have screwed up here, they don't need your free attempts at PR.

I never said "everyone cares if someone cheats." But it's just as likely that thousands of people would eventually go "huh, I feel like checking out this pvp thing they got going on" when it launches... and then hit a giant fucking brick wall of people with invincible characters with gear that lets them one shot other people that aren't likewise made immortal by hacked characters and gear. At that point they get completely turned off from the experience and the game and bail.

It also effects people that attempt to use the AH; gold based or real money based, as suddenly people dupe items, and make both auction houses total crap shows of nothing but hacked items, which can affect people.

On top of all of that, if Diablo 3 ends up with a ladder the way Diablo 2 had a ladder, hacking and cheating also completely destroys that.

Random person A may not be effected. Random person B may be effected. Why is random person A, in your scenario, more important than random person B?

Not too concerned about all these issues so far, but it is pretty funny having to deal with a full second of latency in a single player game.

@FateOfNever said:

@depecheload said:

Someone tell me how Blizzard's plan of forcing you to play this online does anything good for the consumer at all?

Not buying this. It's broken. I'll give Torchlight 2 a chance though.

It prevents cheaters. That's something good for the consumer. It also prevents people from going "but I totally spent like three months playing this guy to get him to hell mode and now I can't play him with friends? I do nots understand why my single player character cannot be taken to an online mode? I are confused and now I will rages!" and make no mistake, there would be just as much rage about that as there is about these launch day problems because people, as a whole, are idiots and have become so spoiled and cannot comprehend things like that anymore that they would throw just as much of a fit about it. There could also be other benefits that I don't know about. So there, some benefits for the consumers and for Blizzard to not have to deal with idiot people. And Blizzard not having to deal with idiot people is a benefit to consumers because it means they can put their efforts to more worthwhile things. Like people getting their accounts hacked because they refuse to use proper security measures when dealing with their accounts.

If Joe Bloggs just wants to play co-op together with a friend and his girlfriend, why would he care that some guy thousands of miles away has cheated to clone some items? It has no effect on the consumer playing single player or private co-op with friends. These are not good reasons.

NB: I have never actually played a Diablo game and they didn't seem to even try to market this game to people like me. I would probably never have bought it anyway. Still, the whole scandal is interesting to me as they seem to have vociferous defenders on forums, which baffles me. They're a corporation who have screwed up here, they don't need your free attempts at PR.

@Rawson: I agree. As someone who has played many MMOs at launch, this is about normal. WoW was near unplayable for a month. Lets stop fooling ourselves, Diablo III is a F2P MMO in different clothing.

Seems like most of the people really complaining, are people still mad about having to log in to play alone. Valid complaints, but ranting on forums and posting negative user reviews is not going to effect change - they need to look at Operation Rainfall as an example of how to run a campaign, no developer or publisher will take launch day complaints seriously in the grand scheme of things. If they use the proper channels, remain civil, and maintain their campaign for months - it might change something for the next game. If we all rage online, then nobody remembers it a month from now, it means nothing.

The people complaining about the launch of this game have clearly never been around for very many launches of online games, or they're enacting selective memory.

For the past three days, I've been able to get online and play with friends more often than not. Sure, it'd be great if they were up 100% of the time. But that's a pipe dream for any game, much less one as massive as this.

@Dunchad said:

From my perspective, it's weird how big of a shitstorm this became. At least in the EU, I haven't had any server issues beyond 45 minutes after launch and haven't experienced lag more than few times over the course of the last couple of days.

But even if that hadn't been the case. Didn't we all know there wasn't going to be an offline mode? Aren't we all aware that "only online" games can have issues with servers and lag? Why the fuck was anyone surprised?

And at least most D2 players should be fine with things as they are. Even though you could play D2 offline, you couldn't take that character online - where the meat of the game was. Who wants to spend hours gathering loot and then not be able to show off the shiny stuff to other people? And cheating is a big deal, since it can devalue your own efforts - so if that is eliminated by having D3 work this way, all the better.

I can sort of understand the issue some people have ("Why can't I play my singleplayer game?"), but I just can't see D3 as a singleplayer game even if you can play it alone. It's pretty much like saying SWTOR is a singleplayer game - in essence it can be, but the statement is still not true.

Little to no issues here as well. Great points.

@n8: If Blizzard didn't deserve these posts in the first place, I'd agree with you. In the meantime, they kinda fucked up pretty badly. I love Diablo, and Blizzard, but these posts are totally acceptable in light of their just mediocre launch.

They were down from 5am-7am PST today. How do I know this? I got up early to play before work. Bummer

According to a post on Blizzard's forums, the servers have generally been running smoothly since last night

Wow, Alex almost made a news post without a snarky comment. He must have realized this and added one one the back end to rectify his mistake.