|
On September 22 2011 01:09 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2011 23:33 Big Jim Slade wrote:On September 21 2011 14:23 Inori wrote:
Blizzard tries to justify it with better anti-hack, yet game is already hacked without even beta being fully out.
The important thing you're missing here: Blizzard's 'Online Only' stance was never intended to completely stop people from pirating the game (that's impossible). This move was necessary because of the Real Money Auction House. That's what they say. They pretty much bullshitted their way when they said SC2 was going to be online only and gave shady reasons to make themselves look good. The game is perfectly playable without real money auction house, so LAN would have absolutely no effect on that. I would argue that Blizzard is just lying about D3's online-only also. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that the main reason is to reduce pirating (not shut it down). It is wrong. They're not stupid. They know you can't stop hackers no matter how hard they try. Even with 256-bit encryption its merely a matter of time before someone cracks the code. Online-only has the same effect; only slowing them down. The real purpose of Online-only is exactly what they've described; so people can play their Single-player characters in a hack-free environment, then choose to join the online world without having to reroll - the #1 reason why people didn't play multiplayer in the first two, and similar games. And everyone knows that a more vibrant multiplayer base leads to a long-running franchise. It's their attempt to evolve a genre, not another futile gesture to stop hackers.
It's to stop piracy i'll reiterate it, If it takes hackers a few months maybe half a year to get a proper emulated server up and running during that time the cheap shits that would maybe pirate the game play it for a week and never touch it again will probably buy the game. This is a move to increase sales no forever stop piracy. hack free environment isn't really the reason they could have just offered single player characters that were only allowed to play solo but that open it up to pirates much quicker. Look at sc2 where multi-player is the attraction there are emulated b.net servers that you can play but it took so long the number of people who do use it are small, and so vast majority are on legit copies. WoW there are emulated servers but blizzard tends to shut those down as they still make money on wow, ie that monthly subscription they care about that. This isn't a move to end all piracy of their games it's to maximize their sales on the cheap skapes. Not every game wants a like 40% of all players playing on pirated copies like Modern warfare was =p
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2011 01:49 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 21:45 Jibba wrote:On September 21 2011 16:56 TheRabidDeer wrote:
There is no need to have LAN for a game like D3. The reason is that the actual D3 will get stale very quickly, just like D2 did. Of course it was addictive, but objectively D2 wasn't a very good game and was extremely shallow. What LAN/Open Bnet allow are mods, which are what make most modern games better. open b.net vs closed b.net in d2 was hackers vs botters. Problem was hackers way of playing was just hack an item till op see if you can kill other ppl, bots was like running a sim game where you collect shit, tweak a few things then sell it for FG in d2jsp.
You used Open Bnet to connect to a private server running a specific server/mod, like Median XL. The problem with always-connected Bnet is the same problem we've seen with SC2.
Bnet is a piece of shit and Blizzard's games lack a lot of features/functionality that certain gamers prefer (such as LAN pings or new skill sets) that mods take care of. There's no doubt that SC2 would be improved by LAN support and that D3 would be improved by mod support. Neither of those is going to happen for the same reasons.
The difference in this case is that Blizzard will just lose players to Torchlight 2.
|
I don't believe so only a small group of players played on moded servers, that being said that small group tended to build a sense of community for the game, SC2 lives on without that because of places like TL a large findable community for people to chat about and stay linked to the game. Diablo is more spread out there are groups of communities but they often revolved around various hacks or bots. Anyways blizzard plans to milk their cow by releasing ever more expansions like they did for WoW and are planning for Sc2.
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line.
|
On September 21 2011 17:56 jacen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 17:24 Truedot wrote:
people who say there's no reason for lan becauise everyone can connect ot the internet, blah blah blah, are just apologists who don't understand how the internet actually works, and who don't care about people being denied the right to play their game wherever, without a connection to the internet neecessary. Bandwidth is not the issue here. Dia3's traffic per player, even if it exceeds that of WoW (which it technically shouldn't) is not more than 25kb/s up/down per player. On a 500kb/sec upstream (since upstream will almost always be the limit) you can technically fit 20 people, realistically 15 people. If you plan on hosting a bigger LAN, a line with more than 500kb/sec up should be availible as you will also need a bigger room. But philosophically you are right. For the singleplayer portion there should be no need of an active internet connection. Sc2 too has an offline mode for singleplayer and so should D3. For multplayer, they should implement a virtual lan mode that only sends authentication to bnet but data just within the LAN like with the Valve games. But multiplayer without any internet connection is not gonna happen as it opens the door too wide for early and easy piracy. And yes, there will still be multiplayer piracy even with the mandatory internet connection. But it will be not nearly as widespread. While this is unfortunate for players in remote locations that wanna play via LAN, they represent a very tiny fraction of the playerbase and are justifiable to "cut". Blizzard will get more money from people buying the game because they can't easy pirate the multiplayer than they lose of players that can't play multiplayer because they have no internet access. Same rational goes for singleplayer but quantities of both parties shift a little and it's not immediately clear if it pays of for them to haunt consumers with required internet access for singleplayer. But it's still a decision they have to make. You have every right to boycott and i understand your motives, but please remember that a vast majority of the playerbase sees the required internet as a non-issue as long as the service is reliable on Blizzards side.
my downstream is 90 kb/s, my upstream is ~30. And I live next to a major city (major being ~300,000 people) in my state. And this is the best internet I can get where I live due to a communications monopoly.
So screw you.
|
On September 22 2011 02:06 Truedot wrote:
my downstream is 90 kb/s, my upstream is ~30. And I live next to a major city (major being ~300,000 people) in my state. And this is the best internet I can get where I live due to a communications monopoly.
Well it should still be enough for one client. Realistically, you should be able do fit 2-5 clients on that line. But yeah, your bandwidth kinda sucks, i have more bandwidth over my mobile phone ...
Where do you live? US? Europe?
|
I'd say both D3 and SC2 would greatly benefit from LAN support, although for different reasons. In my opinion D3 is (or will be, probably) the far better game for LANs, but SC2 on the other hand would benefit greatly from the lag reduction which doesn't really matter when playing Diablo.
And for all you people saying, "np no need LAN": well, maybe *you* don't need it, or at least think you don't. For me I'd pay more if I got my damn LAN support. Of all the LANs I've attended, only ONE has had an actual internet connection. All the other's have just been a bunch of computers connected by a switch.
Besides actual LANs, I sometimes go to my father's country house. No internet there. Apparently I'm not allowed to play D3 while I'm on vacation. What about when you're riding a train? I'm not allowed to make the time pass by doing some quests in single player? I see. You're all making sense now that I think about it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 22 2011 02:04 semantics wrote:
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line.
Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base.
|
Why are you surprised that it's hacked already? Nuke teams these days are really good, and it usually takes them at most a few days after a game comes out to hack it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and blizz shouldn't use it as an excuse to not include lan, because for hackers it's not a big deal to set up on-line servers for a game to play on (examples wow, l2, aion etc.)
|
There is no playable emulator at this point, the OP is misleading. The only thing that is possible as far as i know is character selection screen and running around a bit. NO quests, NO killing enemys, nothing else.
|
I voted no.
Don't get me wrong, I played D2 on battle.net exclusively. I am excited about D3 and the fact that you would need to buy a copy of the game to run a bot. Hopefully there will be limited advertisements as well.
But, all of this is non-issue while playing on LAN with friends.
|
On September 22 2011 06:20 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 02:04 semantics wrote:
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line. Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base.
Hardcore players don't really buy that much games though so devs don't really care much about them.
|
hacks came out for starcraft 2 very quickly too in the Beta, it doesnt matter what game you have hacks will always come out.
|
On September 21 2011 17:17 Truedot wrote:The whole idea that you're tethered to require an internet connection in itself is proof that blizz/activis doesn't give a shit about its customers. you know why, its cause people buy their products regardles,s because its a "must have" thing. why should I have my fun to enjoy it however I please, where and whenever I please, and with whoever I please, be limited by being forced to go through their server for it? ultimately, its consumers that make the goalposts though. and when consumers keep buying products instead of abstaining, or, more illegally, just ripping the company off to shove it in their faces, they're going to Promote this type of behavior from companies. its just like a dog. if you give it a cookie when it shits on the carpet, don't you think you're going to see a lot more turds in the future? A company CANNOT keep saying "screw you" when all its customers leave. Companies DO look at the bottom line, and they have to cater to what gets them that best one. if it helps, think of companies as amoral monsters, who can either be continually petted and soothed despite becoming worse and worse, or can be disciplined by market shares into behaving exactly how you want. Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 15:39 mtn wrote:
The thing is that D3 isn't even released yet, and there are already not really playable, but still ARE server emulators. That really is something. this.
Perhaps you should stop buying Blizzard's games then from now on, and stop gaming al together. I expect this trend to grow more and more, you see it everywhere with major games like Mass Effect (requires steam) and DE:HR.
They will make money one way or another, and if people stay cheapskate then it'll only get worse.
|
On September 22 2011 19:15 Aelonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 17:17 Truedot wrote:The whole idea that you're tethered to require an internet connection in itself is proof that blizz/activis doesn't give a shit about its customers. you know why, its cause people buy their products regardles,s because its a "must have" thing. why should I have my fun to enjoy it however I please, where and whenever I please, and with whoever I please, be limited by being forced to go through their server for it? ultimately, its consumers that make the goalposts though. and when consumers keep buying products instead of abstaining, or, more illegally, just ripping the company off to shove it in their faces, they're going to Promote this type of behavior from companies. its just like a dog. if you give it a cookie when it shits on the carpet, don't you think you're going to see a lot more turds in the future? A company CANNOT keep saying "screw you" when all its customers leave. Companies DO look at the bottom line, and they have to cater to what gets them that best one. if it helps, think of companies as amoral monsters, who can either be continually petted and soothed despite becoming worse and worse, or can be disciplined by market shares into behaving exactly how you want. On September 21 2011 15:39 mtn wrote:
The thing is that D3 isn't even released yet, and there are already not really playable, but still ARE server emulators. That really is something. this. Perhaps you should stop buying Blizzard's games then from now on, and stop gaming al together. I expect this trend to grow more and more, you see it everywhere with major games like Mass Effect (requires steam) and DE:HR. They will make money one way or another, and if people stay cheapskate then it'll only get worse.
oh really china? You see, I bought mass effect for Xbox, and I don't require steam to play it. Hrmm, guess you're wrong. In fact, I can play it without even hooking up to the internet at all. I'm glad Im not a collectivist conformist with no critical thinking skills.
|
On September 21 2011 17:19 chiboni wrote:
Pretty much what some people said. There is no reason for LAN (expect for major tournaments, no lagg etc.) because now everyone is ONLINE. I doubt you sitting in a room with your friends, having a 'LAN' and you are not ONLINE while playing.
So it sounds more like 'Why do i have to pay X copys when i want to play with my friends,even so one of us owns a copy'.
Also that with the emulated server is no big suprise.. WOW Addon Cataclysm was emulated/datamined the day F&F Alpha came out.
So i guess its common for client sided games ?
you've never lanned with a group of people during college? It is one of the fun things you can do if you enjoy computer games. the last one i went to was at univ of rochester where we had a SC competition over lan, along with other games like w3. it was easier to set up since you couldn't join each other's games because of IP issues, and it was much quicker too.
if you have no friends i can believe that you won't have friends to sit with and play together.
you end up sharing games through pirated versions just to play for the session.
but whatever. you are just a loyal fanboy
|
On September 22 2011 01:09 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On September 21 2011 23:33 Big Jim Slade wrote:On September 21 2011 14:23 Inori wrote:
Blizzard tries to justify it with better anti-hack, yet game is already hacked without even beta being fully out.
The important thing you're missing here: Blizzard's 'Online Only' stance was never intended to completely stop people from pirating the game (that's impossible). This move was necessary because of the Real Money Auction House. That's what they say. They pretty much bullshitted their way when they said SC2 was going to be online only and gave shady reasons to make themselves look good. The game is perfectly playable without real money auction house, so LAN would have absolutely no effect on that. I would argue that Blizzard is just lying about D3's online-only also. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that the main reason is to reduce pirating (not shut it down). The real purpose of Online-only is exactly what they've described; so people can play their Single-player characters in a hack-free environment, then choose to join the online world without having to reroll - the #1 reason why people didn't play multiplayer in the first two, and similar games. And everyone knows that a more vibrant multiplayer base leads to a long-running franchise. It's their attempt to evolve a genre, not another futile gesture to stop hackers.
It's about volume sold. In D2 if you wanted to keep your solo character when you moved to multiplayer you could just connect to the closed ladder and play by yourself. But you still had the option to play single player and LAN, or play with whatever third party crap you wanted, including hacks and mods, in the sandboxes of Hamachi or open battle.net. Fewer features is not a better game.
The reason people don't play multiplayer is because they don't give a fuck about it, and they didn't buy the title for that. It's not a problem, and it doesn't need fixed.
|
On September 22 2011 06:20 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 02:04 semantics wrote:
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line. Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base.
Jibba how u so smart.
I came here to say just about that. Looook D3 will be superhyped beyond belief but at the end of the day its longevity will be shit. I can't stand to play the original D2 anymore. I can imagine myself thinking similar things within a year or two of D3. I'm still enjoying the intensely farm happy Eastern Sun mod. What will I say about D3 ten years from now?
|
On September 22 2011 19:15 Aelonius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 15:39 mtn wrote:
The thing is that D3 isn't even released yet, and there are already not really playable, but still ARE server emulators. That really is something. this.
server emulators are inevitable, the real test is actually making something that comes within lightyears of resembling the actual game
|
On September 25 2011 12:35 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:20 Jibba wrote:On September 22 2011 02:04 semantics wrote:
Also torchlight is a small time game it doesn't attract as much attention as diablo would, the chances of large mass of players skipping diablo for torchlight is remote. Maybe they will get both but play torchlight for a longer time but that's not cutting so much into the blizzard bottom line. Blizzard will obviously win in games sold dollars, but I bet a lot of the hardcore players, the ones who are still playing 3 years down the line, will consider jumping ship. I don't know that they mean that much to Blizzard but I do think it's a problem if they can't hold onto their base. Jibba how u so smart. I came here to say just about that. Looook D3 will be superhyped beyond belief but at the end of the day its longevity will be shit. I can't stand to play the original D2 anymore. I can imagine myself thinking similar things within a year or two of D3. I'm still enjoying the intensely farm happy Eastern Sun mod. What will I say about D3 ten years from now?
D2 is ranked 8th on Amazon's "Best Sellers in PC Action Games"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/videogames/229577/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_vg_3_3_last
look at the games the D2 chest is ahead of
Blizzard games last and Diablo 3 won't be any different
|
People did this very same thing when SC2 beta came out as well, that didn't last very long.
All games get hacked/manipulated in some form, not really a big deal anymore. Also, as anyone can see LAN is the "past" as much as that probably sucks to hear. Every company is trying to go fully online with their products sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
